BACK IN the late 80s, climate change was just another topic discussed inside classrooms. Students memorized global warming, greenhouse gases, and environmental destruction because these might appear in exams.
But today, the test is happening outside.
We feel it every time we step under a punishing sun, when classes are suspended because classrooms feel like ovens, and when communities flood after only a few hours of heavy rain.
Climate change is no longer a future warning. It is our daily reality.
That is why the cutting of hundreds of trees along Quirino Avenue in Manila for the Southern Access Link Expressway project triggered public outrage. Supporters argue that the project will ease traffic and improve mobility. Fair enough. Anyone who has spent hours trapped on Philippine roads understands that better transportation is necessary.
But the harder question remains: Should solving one problem require us to create another?
A faster road may save motorists several minutes. But what is the cost when trees that took decades to grow disappear overnight?
We often measure progress through economic indexes but we rarely calculate what we lose.
Who measures the value of shade protecting ordinary commuters from extreme heat? Who computes the cooling effect of trees in crowded cities? Who puts a price on cleaner air, flood protection, biodiversity, and the comfort that green spaces bring?
Trees are not decorations. They are living infrastructure.
A mature tree absorbs carbon dioxide, filters pollution, stores rainwater, reduces heat, and provides benefits no artificial structure can immediately replace. Studies have shown that areas with trees can be several degrees cooler than concrete-heavy spaces.
This matters for the Philippines as we are one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change. With heat indexes reaching dangerous levels, removing mature trees in already crowded cities is like removing electric fans from a room that is already burning hot.
This is why environmental protection cannot be an afterthought.
Our laws recognize this responsibility. Presidential Decree No. 953 requires the planting and protection of trees in public areas. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources regulates tree cutting because trees are public resources, not mere obstacles to construction.
Development should not mean approving projects first and considering environmental consequences later.
Other nations have learned this lesson.
Singapore became a global city not by choosing between buildings and trees, but by integrating nature into urban planning. Tokyo protects green spaces despite limited land. Vietnam and many European cities design roads around trees because they understand that nature is not the enemy of progress.
Nature is part of progress.
Sadly, we often do the opposite. When a tree stands in the way of construction, the tree must adjust. When nature conflicts with a blueprint, nature loses.
Perhaps it is time to rethink what progress really means.
The true measure of development is not just how many roads and buildings we create, but whether future generations inherit cities where they can breathe, walk safely, and live well.
Because when the last tree disappears, we may realize something painful.
We did not remove obstacles to progress but the very things protecting us.
A city without traffic may be convenient; but a city without trees will never be truly livable.
