Dear Editor,

The idea of a low carbon development strategy is not a bad one. However, you cannot execute it the way the government is currently doing. So in this sense I agree fully with Eric Phillips `The Low Carbon Development Strategy is a new form of mendicancy’ (SN June 15, 09). You need a portfolio of industrial policies based on taking Guyana away from fossil fuels. We all accept Guyana would be well off with hydroelectricity. But when the cost to build one is outlined it is running at around 50% of GDP. The latter means that when you add the cost of financing and consider the current demand for electricity in Guyana the unit price will be very high for a massive hydro project – this will likely be a killer for future productive activities.

Therefore, why not have a small one to provide electricity for a smelter for only Region 10. Then upgrade the sugar industry for ethanol (an E10 to E20 policy will be great) and bagasse electricity (Mauritius rings out around 220 MW each year from bagasse; how come we can only get 10 MW from Skeldon?). Then why not have wind turbines and even cheap solar panels in the rural areas? If the PPP is indeed serious about a low carbon development strategy they will switch to renewable energy in the next 10 years and many jobs will be created in the process – rather than just throwing back and kicking out the feet and chilling out for cash to roll in from the REDD (which many commentators have noted could be a disappointment).

Eric Phillips raised some serious political economy questions as to how this cash will be shared. These are valid questions and they must be answered before we can start pulling this dankey-cart economy to a Corolla and Camry economy. I am not optimistic the cash will be shared equitably given the PPP’s democratic centralism and the current titivated 1980 Burnham Constitution.

Yours faithfully,
T Khemraj
(Comment extracted from SN website)