Why would President Jagdeo persist with his carbon credits scheme when the idea of global warming is uncertain?

Dear Editor,

The following comments come from a person who has shed his share of blood, sweat and tears in the forest industry. Being a past owner of a State Forest Permission, I left Guyana in frustration in search of financing because of the limited opportunities. I still look forward to a future in the industry. I have willing investors standing by, but in their minds Guyana is not yet investment safe. They are timid and unsure so they are paying particular attention to the government’s every move. It is just a matter of the government getting it right. I am pressuring them to make a move, anyway, with the hope that a flurry of investment will solve the unemployment and crime crisis.

There is no doubt that without considering the other natural resources, an effectively run forest industry alone has the potential of putting Guyana on the road to prosperity.

Potential doom and generated gloom about global warming have transfixed quite a lot of people around the world but wasn’t it not so long ago, in the ’60s and ’70s that the world was teetering on the edge of similar disaster called Global Cooling?

On April 28, 1975, Newsweek wrote, “The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…” The bar chart in the article shows cool temperatures in 1880 raising (getting hot − global warming) to peak in the 1950s then dropping again in the 1970s when the claims of global cooling were made. The big question, which clashes with today’s theory, is, “What took up the temperature (global warming) between 1900 and 1950?” Couldn’t be CO2.

Let’s fast-forward to this year, in the midst of this global warming scare and carbon credit purchases. Take this news article on Fox News by Brit Hume, Thursday, February 28, 2008:  “Tuesday we told you about several areas around the planet experiencing record cold and snowpack — in the face of all the predictions of global warming. “Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year… Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity — which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.”

To back this up here is an excerpt from an article written by Dennis Avery. “The official thermometers at the U.S. National Climate Data Center show a slight global cooling trend over the last seven years, from 1998 to 2005. Actually, global warming is likely to continue − but the interruption of the recent strong warming trend sharply undercuts the argument that our global warming is an urgent, man-made emergency. The seven-year decline makes our warming look much more like the moderate, erratic warming to be expected when the planet naturally shifts from a Little Ice Age (1300–1850 AD) to a centuries-long warm phase like the Medieval Warming (950–1300 AD) or the Roman Warming (200 BC– 600 AD).”

“The stutter in the temperature rise should rein in some of the more apoplectic cries of panic over man-made greenhouse emissions. The strong 28-year upward trend of 1970–1998 has apparently ended. Fred Singer, a well-known skeptic on man-made warming, points out that the latest cooling trend is dictated primarily by a very warm El Nino year in 1998. “When you start your graph with 1998,” he says, “you will necessarily get a cooling trend.” Bob Carter, a palaeoclimatologist from Australia, notes that the earth also had strong global warming between 1918 and 1940. Then there was a long cooling period from 1940 to 1965. He points out that the current warming started 50 years before cars and industries began spewing consequential amounts of CO2. Then the planet cooled for 35 years just after the CO2 levels really began to surge. In fact, says Carter, there doesn’t seem to be much correlation between temperatures and man-made CO2.”

Now about the carbon footprint and carbon credits. Given the information above there should be no basis for this scheme, but sad to say a lot of well intended persons have fallen for this ‘save the planet’ euphoria, and without doing proper research continue to participate in drinking the tainted cool aid of do-good sweet-talk advocates like Al Gore. When one digs deep the findings show that the idea is a great business venture, which basically preys on the sensitivities of kind-hearted environmentalist types.

Al Gore’s proposed business venture stipulates what the fair amount of a person’s yearly carbon footprint should be. If you go above that you pay a fee to the company, which is supposed to plant a tree on your behalf to offset the extra footprint. The irony of all of this is that Al Gore’s personal footprint is probably more than that of the entire Guyana. The British already have a similar tax, which constrict them to driving smaller vehicles, among other things. Now there is an idea floating around that rich countries may be willing to pay poorer countries to save their standing forest to offset the carbon footprints of elaborate development. In response savvy, opportunistic speculators are getting heads of governments to commit to a product that is not presently marketable and may never be marketable. But there is no problem with speculating; there is big money to be made if it goes through. The only disadvantage is to the countries that put their forest on hold waiting for the speculators to work their magic.

Cashing in on carbon credits sales is an extremely outlandish expectation and the possibility of getting a fair market price is almost nonexistent. But even more importantly, for this idea to go through, all of the eight top world players have to sign on. Presently China is saying, “no way.” They are not going to be tied down to these global warming initiatives − they are a third world country and they are now getting a chance at development they say. The US position now is tentative because of the impending change of government, but even if Obama wants to say yes, expect a lot of opposition from the Republicans. The Brazilians are fixed in their position of a stern, “no.”

Now, given all that is mentioned above and given the uncertainty of this whole idea why would President Jagdeo continue to persist with this scheme? Instead of the saving of Guyana being his foremost objective he seems to be more interested in saving the planet. More pointedly I want to believe this is more about saving face coupled with an extreme case of wishful thinking. But no, the President is too intelligent for that. Could this be a way of impressing the electorate approaching upcoming elections? Forgive me, but I am striving to find some logic in the thinking especially when we have a role model of the world − Brazil − as our neighbor saying no.

I do not claim to know the President’s motivation but I am sure that because of his own governing policy he is faced with little or no investment, is cash strapped so he thinks that he should take the bull by the horns to get the capital Guyana desperately needs all by himself. But isn’t this working too hard for next to nothing compared with simply implementing the right principles and allowing private investment to flourish?

Although I am still to see the intended area for preservation, there is no way the actual and residual value of the area is worth the US$580M per year that the President is proposing. Assuming of course that he can get that deal. Considering the uncertainty of this proposal, given the various schools of thought about CO2 effect on Global Warming, the stifling of hinterland related development and the certainty that this IMF type restriction will ensure that Guyana remains a poor state, the President should earnestly express the thought process which leads him to take this gamble with our lives and prosperity.

Yours faithfully,
F Skinner