USING PLASTIC BRICKS FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION

 USING PLASTIC BRICKS FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION 

The last I checked, using bricks for building roads has not gone out of style. As a matter of fact, it has quietly come back into style—mainly because of environmental reasons. We usually think of bricks as something we see in old European streets or historical plazas, but they’re more than just “heritage” pieces. Bricks—especially if they are made from recycled plastics—might just be part of the solution to our local road woes.

Firstly, bricks are good for roads and pavements because they let the earth breathe. Those tiny cracks between the bricks allow water to seep through, instead of flooding the surface. This simple fact is often ignored when we cover everything with concrete and asphalt, which trap heat, cause runoff, and worsen urban flooding. Isn’t it ironic that what is considered an “old” material could be more climate-adaptive than the modern ones we now depend on?

Secondly, used plastics can now be recycled into bricks. This gives us a two-in-one solution: we reduce plastic waste while creating useful materials for road and pavement construction. In Cebu, for instance, experiments with plastic pavers are already showing promise. To me, this is not only good for the environment—it is also good for the economy. Instead of plastics ending up in our rivers and seas, they could be repurposed into infrastructure that communities need.

Now, let me be clear. I am not talking about EDSA or the North Luzon Expressway. I am talking about minor roads, side roads, and pathways that are not subjected to heavy truckloads. More importantly, I am talking about “farm-to-market” roads. For decades now, farmers have been promised these roads so they can bring their produce to market more efficiently. And for decades, these roads have remained mostly promises. What if farmers could build them themselves—using recycled plastic bricks?

This idea is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Farmers could form cooperatives, if they have not already done so, and set up simple extruders to produce plastic bricks. The technology is not complicated, and the raw materials—waste plastics—are in abundant supply. Imagine turning a problem (plastic waste) into a solution (farm-to-market roads).

Some cooperatives could even take it a step further: build their own toll roads to sustain the costs of construction and maintenance. Why not? If private corporations can do it for expressways, why can’t farmers’ cooperatives do the same on a smaller scale for their own benefit? The revenues could go back into maintaining the roads or even expanding them.

Does anyone know of a cooperative that might want to try this idea? If not, perhaps an LGU could step in to pilot it. Local governments are constantly grappling with two issues: waste management and lack of infrastructure. Here’s an approach that could address both at once. By investing in small-scale facilities that produce plastic bricks, LGUs could convert a liability into an asset.

Let’s be realistic, though. Plastic bricks may not be the best choice for heavy traffic or major highways. Laying bricks is more labor-intensive and requires more time compared to pouring asphalt. Still, for barangay roads, eco-village walkways, or even school grounds, plastic bricks are not only acceptable—they are practical. They are modular, easy to repair (you just replace the damaged brick), and visually appealing compared to plain concrete.

We already have precedents in the Philippines. Green Antz Builders, a social enterprise, has been producing “EcoBricks” made from shredded plastic sachets mixed with cement. Their products are five times stronger than traditional hollow blocks, with added insulation benefits. These EcoBricks are already used in schools, daycare centers, and barangay facilities. Why not extend this innovation to road pavements?

Meanwhile, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) has gone a step further by approving the use of plastic waste in asphalt mixes. This is a big deal because it makes plastic waste part of the national road network standard. But again, I return to my earlier point: not all roads have to be highways. Barangay and farm roads deserve their own innovations.

In the end, the question is simple: will we continue to wait for big-ticket infrastructure projects that may never come, or will communities empower themselves to build their own solutions? Plastic bricks may not pave all our problems away, but they could pave enough pathways to make a real difference—especially for our farmers who have waited too long.

Yes, brick roads are still acceptable. And in the right context, they may even be the most forward-looking option we have.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

12-10-2025 

PROMOTING AND PROTECTING MILKFISH

PROMOTING AND PROTECTING MILKFISH

Believe it or not, we occasionally run short of milkfish—yes, our beloved bangus. The gap can reach up to 55,000 metric tons. That’s not just a number. That’s a lot of empty plates, disrupted livelihoods, and missed opportunities. What does that mean for us?

Does it mean we’re importing milkfish? Officially, not much. But unofficially? That’s a different story. Some insiders suggest that milkfish may already be slipping in through the backdoor—smuggled, untracked, and unregulated. It’s not a wild theory. Even government officials have admitted that our borders are “porous.” That’s not just a diplomatic way of saying “we have a problem.” That’s a red flag waving in plain sight.

Now, while I’m concerned about milkfish being smuggled in, I’m even more alarmed by the possibility of milkfish fingerlings being smuggled out. That’s our future stock. That’s our aquaculture base. That’s our national fish. And if we’re losing it to unregulated exports, we’re not just losing fish—we’re losing sovereignty over a species that’s deeply tied to our culture and economy.

Let’s clear up a common misconception: milkfish is native to the Philippines, yes—but it’s not endemic. It’s also found in Indonesia, Taiwan, and other parts of Asia and the Pacific. So, we’re not the only ones growing it. But we are among the best at it. Dagupan didn’t earn the title “Bangus Capital of the World” for nothing.

Still, illegal exports aren’t the only threat. There’s a silent predator in our waters: tilapia. Many don’t realize it, but tilapia is an invasive species. And it’s not just competing with milkfish—it’s consuming its fry. That’s right. Tilapia is eating the very fingerlings we need to sustain our bangus supply. So now we’re at a crossroads.

Do we favor tilapia, the foreign invader? Or do we protect milkfish, our native pride and national fish?

As for me, I choose milkfish. But I’m not calling for a tilapia purge. That would be shortsighted and unfair to the many farmers who depend on it. What I propose is a gradual, supported transition away from tilapia farming. Let’s treat tilapia growers not as violators, but as partners in aquaculture reform. Give them options. Give them support. Help them shift toward native species and sustainable systems.

This is where government planning becomes crucial. We need a long-term strategy—not just to phase out invasive species, but to ramp up milkfish production. The goal? Not just self-sufficiency, but export readiness. Imagine Filipino canned and bottled bangus lining supermarket shelves in Europe, the Middle East, and beyond. That’s not a pipe dream. That’s a market waiting to be tapped.

Let’s look at the numbers. In 2023, we produced 355,400 metric tons of milkfish—down from 414,900 MT in 2019. That’s a worrying trend. Climate events like Typhoon Odette, disease outbreaks, and water pollution have taken their toll. Add to that declining fingerling supply and feed quality, and you’ve got a recipe for shortage.

Meanwhile, domestic demand remains strong. Bangus contributes nearly 14% to total fisheries production and is valued at ₱45.9 billion. Fry demand alone ranges from 2.5 to 3.6 billion pieces annually. That’s why hatchery expansion and LGU partnerships are more than just buzzwords—they’re lifelines.

The Philippine Milkfish Industry Roadmap (2021–2040) lays out some promising goals: boost hatchery efficiency, develop disease-resistant stocks, expand satellite larval rearing facilities, and strengthen LGU and cooperative involvement. All good steps. But we need to go further.

Barangay-level cooperatives could play a key role in fry sufficiency programs and integrated cage farming. Modular aquaculture systems could localize production and reduce reliance on centralized facilities. Cold-chain upgrades could minimize post-harvest losses and extend market reach.

And let’s not forget biosecurity. Smuggling of fry—whether in or out—poses serious risks. Disease outbreaks, data mismatches, and unregulated imports all threaten the integrity of our aquaculture system. Strengthening quarantine protocols, digital tagging, and cooperative fry registries could help us track and protect our stock.

So where do we go from here?

We go local. We go modular. We go native. We go strategic.

Let’s promote and protect milkfish—not just as a commodity, but as a symbol of our resilience, our ingenuity, and our identity.

Bangus is more than food. It’s a future we can shape—if we choose to.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

12-09-2025 

ALL COASTAL REGIONS SHOULD HAVE ARTIFICIAL CORAL REEFS

ALL COASTAL REGIONS SHOULD HAVE ARTIFICIAL CORAL REEFS

I know I am not dreaming when I say that it is real: artificial coral reefs are finally being deployed to save our seas. Recently, the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) in region 11 partnered with the local government of Tagum City to install 100 artificial coral reefs in its coastal waters. The goal? To restore degraded habitats, revive marine biodiversity, and secure the livelihoods of fisherfolk.

Now, this is commendable. But here comes my first question: why is this project spearheaded by the DOST, and not by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), which is supposed to monitor, protect, and rehabilitate our ecosystems? Should this not have been DENR’s turf all along? And where is the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), which oversees our fisheries? Also, should not the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) be in the loop, since LGUs are at the frontline of coastal management? For me, this should be a four-way cooperation between DOST, DENR, BFAR, and DILG.

Would it be correct to assume that the need for artificial reefs comes from the sad fact that natural coral reefs have already been lost? The data is not encouraging. Decades of monitoring show that only about 30% of Philippine reefs still have good live coral cover. Worse, 97% of them are under threat from destructive fishing, pollution, coastal development, and climate change. Should this not have been detected and monitored earlier? If yes, who was responsible? Is DENR fully doing its job?

In the case of Davao Region, was this problem ever taken up in the agenda of the Regional Development Council (RDC)? If not, why not? RDCs are supposed to be the main planning bodies in the regions, yet critical ecological issues like this often get buried under infrastructure projects. I wonder—was the Tagum LGU the one that pushed this forward? Did they fully fund it, or did DOST cover the costs? These are questions that need answers because if the LGU can do it in partnership with one agency, surely other LGUs can replicate it with all the relevant agencies on board.

But is deploying artificial reefs enough? Is this really a solution, or just a band-aid? Artificial reefs can provide breeding grounds and fish shelters, but they do not reverse the deeper causes of reef decay. Coral reefs die because of climate stress, destructive fishing, and unchecked development. Unless those root causes are addressed, artificial reefs will also suffer the same fate.

That is why monitoring is crucial. I ask: is DENR, DOST, or BFAR using modern technology—like drones, satellite imaging, or heat maps—to detect reef decline? Could NAMRIA or even the Coast Guard not play a stronger role in mapping and protecting our marine ecosystems? What is Congress doing about this? Is this ever seriously discussed at the Cabinet level? I know that senators have raised reef destruction in the West Philippine Sea, but how about domestic waters, where millions of Filipinos rely on reefs for food security?

We must also widen the conversation. Coral reefs are not the only marine habitats in crisis. What about seagrasses and seaweeds? These are equally vital for fish nurseries and coastal protection. Are these being studied and protected in region 11 and elsewhere? If not, then we are solving one problem while ignoring others.

At the heart of this issue is governance. We need a national framework that coordinates DOST’s science, DENR’s regulation, BFAR’s fisheries management, and DILG’s local implementation. Without that four-way cooperation, our response will remain fragmented. Artificial reefs in one city will not save the entire country’s marine biodiversity.

Let me close with this reflection: the Philippines sits at the center of the Coral Triangle, home to the richest marine biodiversity on Earth. Yet we are also among the most threatened. Coral loss is not just an environmental problem—it is a food security crisis, an economic crisis, and even a national security concern. If we cannot protect our reefs, we risk losing the very foundation of our fisheries and coastal communities.

So yes, I say all coastal regions should have artificial reefs. But more than that, all government agencies must act together, with urgency and vision. Because artificial reefs alone cannot save us. Only a united effort can.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

12-08-2025 

NAPOLCOM LEADS THE WAY IN BANNING ONE-WAY PLASTICS

NAPOLCOM LEADS THE WAY IN BANNING ONE-WAY PLASTICS

I know that I am not dreaming, because it is as real as anything: one government agency has finally taken the bold step of banning the use of one-way plastics in all locations within its jurisdiction. That agency is none other than the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM).

This move deserves applause, because for once, an office of government did not wait for a new law or presidential directive. Instead, NAPOLCOM acted within its own authority and decided that the culture of plastic waste must stop—at least within its own walls. The order, signed by Commissioner Rafael Vicente Calinisan, specifically bans plastic straws, stirrers, utensils, disposable cups, food containers, single-use water bottles, and plastic bags in meetings, trainings, and conferences. In their place, employees are encouraged to use refillable containers, eco-bags, and reusable utensils. A simple rule, yet powerful in its implications.

But here is my reasonable dream: would it be too much to ask NAPOLCOM to also ban one-way plastics in all areas where the Philippine National Police (PNP) has jurisdiction? After all, the PNP is under the supervision of NAPOLCOM. Imagine police precincts, stations, and even large camps nationwide becoming models of sustainability. Surely, law enforcers should also be “environment enforcers.”

And while we are dreaming, can we stretch our imagination further? NAPOLCOM’s chairman is also the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG). Couldn’t the DILG, by extension, ban single-use plastics within all its offices? That might sound modest but remember—the jurisdiction of the DILG extends to barangay halls, municipal halls, city halls, and provincial capitol buildings. What a multiplier effect that would be if local governments themselves set the example.

Now, why stop there? The DILG could encourage entire barangays, municipalities, cities, and provinces to adopt the same policy. That would align beautifully with Republic Act 9003, the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, which already requires waste reduction at source. In fact, the National Solid Waste Management Commission passed Resolution No. 1363 in 2020, banning unnecessary single-use plastics in government offices. NAPOLCOM is only following through. But if they can do it, what’s stopping other agencies?

Let us dream even bigger. Could the august halls of Congress—the very body that passes laws—be free of plastic bottles and plastic cups? Would it be too hard for our lawmakers to bring their own tumblers and food containers, as ordinary office workers now do? Symbolism matters. Leadership matters.

The Office of the President itself has a campus along the Pasig River. What better place to demonstrate seriousness about environmental responsibility than in Malacañang? And if the President sets the tone, no agency will dare lag.

Schools and training institutions should not be left out either. The Department of Education (DEPED), the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), and TESDA all manage campuses where young people are shaped not just as learners, but as future citizens. If we want to cultivate a “culture of responsibility and sustainability,” as Commissioner Calinisan put it, then schools are the best place to start. Police and military camps, too, should follow—what better way to show discipline than in managing one’s own waste?

Let me emphasize: the Philippines already has policies pointing in this direction. House Bill 9147, passed by the House in 2021, proposes a phased ban on single-use plastics. Local governments like Quezon City, Pasig, and Siargao have already enacted their own ordinances. The framework is there. What is lacking is strict enforcement and, above all, leadership by example.

That is why I commend NAPOLCOM. Their decision may seem small, but it carries a message larger than themselves: government cannot continue with “business as usual” when it comes to plastic waste. Somebody must take the first step. Now that NAPOLCOM has shown the way, other agencies and LGUs must not only follow but outdo each other in showing how serious they are about protecting our environment.

If we can imagine it, we can achieve it. A Philippines free from the scourge of one-way plastics may begin with one agency, but it can spread to the whole of government—and eventually to the whole nation. For now, let’s applaud NAPOLCOM for making the first move, and let’s challenge everyone else to catch up.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

12-07-2025 

YES, CITIZENS CAN PARTICIPATE IN DEVELOPMENT COUNCILS

YES, CITIZENS CAN PARTICIPATE IN DEVELOPMENT COUNCILS

Many Filipinos complain about corruption and bad governance. That is a valid complaint. But I cannot help asking: if we truly care about fixing governance, why do so few citizens take the initiative to get involved? Is it because they are afraid, indifferent—or simply unaware that there are perfectly legal ways to participate?

One such way is through the many levels of development councils in our country. These councils exist at the barangay, municipal, city, provincial, and even regional levels. And yes, they are not just government talk shops—they are mandated by law to plan, coordinate, and monitor the development programs that affect our communities.

The structure is quite clear. At the barangay level, the Punong Barangay chairs the Barangay Development Council (BDC). At the municipal and city levels, the mayor chairs the council. At the provincial level, the governor takes the lead. At the regional level, an elected official such as a mayor or governor may chair the Regional Development Council (RDC). In other words, the highest officials in each local government unit (LGU) lead the planning bodies that determine how development priorities are set.

But here’s the important part: citizens are not excluded. In fact, the law requires citizen participation. Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)—such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), cooperatives, civic groups, professional associations, faith-based groups, and even business groups—can apply for accreditation so that they can join these councils. Once accredited, CSOs may attend meetings, push for their advocacies, and in some cases, even gain voting rights if chosen as sectoral representatives.

That means ordinary citizens, especially when organized through credible CSOs, can have a say in the actual planning and budgeting of local development projects. And yet, how many know this?

It is ironic. We march in the streets to protest wrong policies, but we fail to show up in the council meetings where those same policies could have been influenced at the start. Should we not consider both approaches? After all, democracy is not only about rallies; it is also about constructive participation in formal institutions.

The problem, of course, is that not all CSOs are equal. Some are well-established and have built trust over the years. Others are “fly-by-night” groups that appear during accreditation season, with no real constituency or track record. Citizens should therefore join credible CSOs that can represent real community interests and make their voices heard meaningfully.

Let me also clarify one common misconception: attending a development council meeting does not always mean you can speak freely. Just like city council (Sangguniang Panlungsod) sessions, attendance is usually open to the public, but participation requires prior coordination. If a CSO wants to present a proposal, it must request inclusion in the agenda or secure endorsement from a council member. Still, even as observers, CSOs gain access to information and opportunities to engage decision-makers.

In fact, accredited CSOs should strive to ensure that their advocacies—whether on climate action, livelihood, indigenous peoples’ rights, or local infrastructure—are included in the agenda of council meetings. If they succeed, they may not just influence small projects but also shape long-term development plans, such as the Barangay Development Plan (BDP) or the Provincial Investment Plan.

There are even broader venues. Citizens have the right to attend regular governing council meetings, including those of the city and municipal councils, unless these are declared “executive sessions.” And yes, even Congress hearings are open to citizens under certain rules. But that is another conversation for another day.

For now, what matters is this: governance is not just the job of politicians. It is also the responsibility of citizens. If we complain about corruption but refuse to participate, are we not also part of the problem?

Development councils offer us a concrete, legal, and constructive way to get involved. No need for barricades, no need for slogans shouted under the heat of the sun. Instead, we can sit at the table, study the plans, propose alternatives, and vote when given the chance.

This is real democracy in action. And it is available to all of us—if only we are willing to take part.

So, I leave you with this question: will we continue to watch from the sidelines, or will we step inside the council chambers and help shape the future of our communities?

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

12-06-2025 

USING SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND LAND USE PLANNING

USING SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND LAND USE PLANNING

Using satellite technology for flood control and land use planning is certainly a good practice in science-driven governance. But let us be clear—it is not the only tool we need for these urgent problems. Sometimes, I wonder whether our government is too enamored with “new” technology when in fact there are already existing data sets available, even without satellites.

I am very sure that PHIVOLCS, NAMRIA, MMDA, DENR, and the now-quiet UP Project NOAH already have valuable maps, surveys, and models in their files. Add to that, LGUs are supposed to maintain their own land use plans using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). These systems are not futuristic—they are here and should be working. So, why aren’t we making better use of them?

Having said that, let me also recognize the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) for working with the Philippine Space Agency (PhilSA). Their idea is to use satellites to detect land use violations that cause flooding in Metro Manila and elsewhere. Assistant Secretary Mylene Rivera is correct: flooding is not only an engineering problem—it is a land use planning problem. When subdivisions, malls, or even factories are allowed to sprout in low-lying areas, and when settlers are forced to live along rivers and easements, then of course waterways narrow, and floods become inevitable.

The DHSUD-PhilSA partnership will roll out a Land Use Compliance Assessment Monitoring System next year. By overlaying satellite images with LGU maps, zoning violations will be visible. That is a good idea. As Rivera said, “You can’t hide anymore.” But let me ask: why are we waiting for satellites to expose what is already obvious on the ground? Drones are now cheap and easy to deploy, and combined with existing maps, they can give a real-time picture of violations. Even barangays could use them.

What the government should really do is integrate all these streams of data—satellites, drones, LGU GIS systems, DENR maps, NAMRIA surveys—into one unified, accessible database. Imagine how powerful that would be for both flood control and land use planning. Right now, it seems that agencies hold their own “silos” of information, reluctant to share. This must change.

Flood control planning, in simple terms, should be GIS-based. No independent flood control project should proceed without alignment to the land use plan. But in the Philippines, we often see the opposite. A road is widened here, a dike is built there, a reclamation project is approved somewhere else—with no integration. Later, when floods worsen, we blame the rains instead of poor planning.

Let me also highlight the government’s 4PH program, which promises safer and affordable housing for low-income families. If it truly follows a strict Site Suitability Assessment, then it could be part of the long-term solution by moving families out of danger zones. But I would caution: how strict will this really be? Will political influence creep in, allowing projects in unsafe areas anyway? We have seen this story before.

I also worry about local capacity. If LGUs are required to maintain GIS-based land use plans, do they have the staff and resources to do so? Some LGUs may not even have a single GIS specialist. Perhaps the national government should fund shared GIS centers that small towns can access. Otherwise, the best satellite imagery in the world will not help if the ground-level governance is weak.

In fairness, satellite technology does offer remarkable capabilities. Real-time monitoring, predictive modeling, and post-flood damage assessment are tools we cannot ignore, especially with stronger typhoons and rising sea levels. But let us not forget that “high-tech” should always be combined with “common sense.” Floods can often be prevented simply by keeping easements clear, not reclaiming wetlands, and respecting ecological buffers.

So yes, let us welcome satellites into our toolbox. But let us also demand that the government make full use of existing data, deploy drones widely, strengthen LGU GIS systems, and most of all, enforce the rules we already have. Flooding is not just about storms—it is about discipline, planning, and the political will to say “no” to dangerous land use.

If we cannot even do that, then no satellite in the sky can save us.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

12-05-2025 

CAN YOU IMAGINE SUSTAINABLE FABRICS MADE FROM WASTE PET PLASTIC BOTTLES?

CAN YOU IMAGINE SUSTAINABLE FABRICS MADE FROM WASTE PET PLASTIC BOTTLES?

Yes, the technology is already here. It is now possible to make fabrics from recycled PET bottles. Imagine that: the very same bottles that clog our rivers, fill our landfills, and poison our seas can be turned into durable fabrics for clothes, bags, upholstery, and even construction materials.

This is not science fiction. Other countries have already invested years of research and millions of dollars to make this technology work. We do not even have to reinvent the wheel. All we need to do is adopt it.

But here’s the question: shall we once again waste time ignoring it, while more plastic bottles pile up uncollected, discarded, and forgotten? Or shall we finally take this opportunity to show the world that we too can be leaders in sustainability?

Who should take the lead?

Now comes the real dilemma. Which agency should lead in adopting this technology?

• DOST, because it is about science.
• DTI, because this is a fabric that can create many new products.
• DILG, because LGUs are the ones that could collect the bottles?
• DENR, because this is ultimately about waste management?

Perhaps all of them, working together, because this is not just about one sector. This is about building a circular economy where waste becomes raw material, where trash becomes treasure.

Public awareness: where do we start?

The entry of this technology is also a great chance to teach the public about recyclable plastics. PET or PETE, coded as  #1, should be easy to explain. Yet in the Philippines, I have noticed that many PETE bottles are not even numbered.

If they are locally manufactured, shouldn’t DTI be enforcing the rules? If they are imported, shouldn’t BOC or DENR make sure they comply with labeling laws? And why are consumers left in the dark?

This is where DepEd, CHED, and TESDA should step in. Why not teach the numbering system for plastics in schools and colleges? Waste literacy should be as basic as reading and writing. After all, our young people are the future managers of our environment.

Reverse Vending Machines and local innovation

Another practical step would be to revisit the idea of Reverse Vending Machines (RVMs), such as the ones being offered by Spurway Enterprises. Imagine every barangay having a station where people can deposit plastic bottles and get something in return—cash, points, or even discount coupons. It’s a small incentive, but it could trigger a big cultural shift in how we treat waste.

At the community level, barangays could even set up sorting and micro-processing hubs. The collected bottles could be cleaned, shredded into flakes, and sold to textile producers. Local cooperatives could take part, ensuring that the economic benefits do not just go to large corporations but also to ordinary people.

From bottle to fabric: the journey of rPET

For those who still wonder how it works, here’s a simplified process:

1.   Collection & Sorting – bottles are gathered and separated by type and color.

2.   Cleaning & Shredding – labels are removed, bottles washed and cut into flakes.

3.   Melting & Extrusion – flakes are melted and extruded into filaments.

4.   Spinning & Weaving – the filaments are turned into yarn and woven into fabrics.

From there, the possibilities are endless: eco-activewear, farm school uniforms, curtains, bags, insulation materials, even geotextiles for construction.

Why it matters

The environmental benefits are clear:

• Millions of bottles diverted from dumps and oceans.
• Lower carbon footprint—up to 50% less energy used compared to virgin polyester.
• Strong potential for barangay-level livelihood programs.

But here’s the deeper truth: this is not only about reducing waste. This is about changing mindsets. We must teach ourselves to see value where before we saw only garbage.

My final words

So, what shall we do about this new technology? If we do nothing, then in ten years we will be drowning in plastic bottles, still asking the same old questions. But if we act now, we can turn a national liability into a national asset.

This is a test of our political will, our creativity, and our ability to collaborate. The technology is already here. The only thing missing is our decision to use it.

Can you imagine sustainable fabrics made from waste PET plastic bottles? I can. The real question is: can we imagine the courage to make it happen?

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

12-04-2025