Coil: Oil to pay for more sea defence?

By Vidyaratha Kissoon

“It is contradictory for Guyana to have been a signatory to the December 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, yet pushing the development of the oil industry. “ citizen Clairmont Lye wrote in a letter to Stabroek News in March 2016.

Nobody bothered to reply or explain why it was not contradictory. ExxonMobil and the oil finds are expected to bring Guyana back from “the brink of calamity’ as one writer put it.

There is no news about whether the Parking Meter contract allows for emergencies if Georgetown floods and citizens cannot get to the Parking Meters. There is no news about how much of the projected oil money Guyana might have to use if Georgetown becomes more vulnerable to the rising seas as more of the oil is burned from Guyana’s seas.

The December 2015 Paris Agreement followed on from a Kyoto deal in which nations were expected to reduce their carbon emissions and to sort things out so that our seawall does not have to be raised higher.

Of course all of this probably does not make much sense to many people. A poignant article from Guyana Chronicle tells about about the “first climate change refugees” who did not understand the meaning of climate change.

Guyanese have seen the periods of intense rainfall and intense dry weather. We have witnessed some extremes which they have not seen before. We probably do not understand some of the other implications .

Guyana in its revised National Determined Contribution to the UNFCCC stated that “Guyana will utilize a combination of conservation and sustainable management of its forests in the fight against climate change.” Guyana also stated that “Guyana is committed to eliminating our near complete dependence on fossil fuels”

Guyana benefits from development money to address climate change. Guyana is seen as vulnerable to climate change. There is a call for proposals in the Sunday papers of 19^th February, from UNESCO for Guyanese NGOs and groups to do initiatives to address climate change and others things.

Many have been advocating for move to higher ground to escape the rising sea levels. However, the effects of climate change could also take their toll on cities at higher ground. Mexico City, on a mountain, is reportedly sinking due to structural problems created by the never ending search for water to deal with the rising temperatures.

And ExxonMobil apparently has known about these things for a long time and pushed and campaigned for denial that the world was in trouble from the changing climate and that reducing fossil fuel burning would help.

In 2016, an oil enriched entity, the Rockefeller Family Fund went public with detailed reporting to describe Exxon Mobil’s denial of climate science.

There is now a court case pending in which Exxon Mobil is being asked to hand over its research into climate science because there are concerns that Exxon was fooling its shareholders. The climate change science should have been discussing business risk rather than say the fact that the world was slowly ending as we know it.

According to the Rockefeller Family Fund “Ultimately, however, ExxonMobil may not be able to sell most of its booked reserves, because the world’s governments, in trying to prevent catastrophic climate change, may have to adopt policies that make exploiting them economically unfeasible [sic].”

In other words, if the world does as Guyana has committed to do, reduce its dependence on fossil fuels to address climate change, then surely ExxonMobil would not be in a position to bring us back from the brink of calamity since less oil would be consumed? Even Saudi Arabia has joined the renewable energy push, though their reasons don’t seem to be about climate change.

Mr Lye asked whether Guyana should not be negotiating to keep the oil in the Ground like how Bharat Jagdeo got Norway to pay to keep the forests while Norway benefited from the burning of the oil.

Dr Thomas Singh in a letter posited that the future of oil money is uncertain. It seems as uncertain as the promise of the Skeldon Sugar Factory.

So how can Guyanese imagine a future, without oil, while dealing with the warming of the planet?

There is a small article in the Guyana Chronicle about farmers in Region 10 who have formed the Region 10 Industrial Hemp and Agricultural Farmers Association, a region whose economy has fluctuated with the rise and fall of the mining and forestry activities.

The cultivation and development of Industrial Hemp according to the farmers would contribute to the vision of a green economy – unlike what ExxonMobil’s partnership with Guyana does.

There is science available to show that industrial hemp has the potential to deliver what the farmers in Region 10 have said it would.

Guyana though seems to have lost the capacity to invest seriously in applying science and technology for its development.

While alternative energy sources are being considered (and solar, wind and hydropower are all affected by climate change), there is no sense that the country is innovating alternatives.

The state of Tasmania, in Australia already has a regimen in place to regulate the production of industrial hemp. There are other countries which Guyana could boil kankee wid to learn how to prevent industrial hemp being a cover for industrial ganja or other narcotic plantations.

The farmers from Region 10 are not dressed in suits. Their entry into the public media was not through a big launch in hotels of dubious origins, but rather as a result that their ideas are not being considered by the Government even as they declare support for the Government’s objectives of a ‘green economy’. Their organisation deserves public support ,discussion and emulation.

The poor governance which is characterised by the Parking Meter contract fiasco is limiting Guyana’s ability to use the knowledge, skills and imagination of its citizens to be actively involved in their own development. Unless Guyanese move beyond the five year cycles of PNC, PPP and oil, the seawalls will never be high enough.