Dear Editor,
I refer to Prof Clive Thomas’s Sunday Stabroek columns of December 13 and 20 on ‘Norway and Guyana’s rainforest.’
As usual Prof Thomas does great analysis on major economic and social issues. His columns provide great educational value. But I have serious problems with what I would characterize as his scathing attack on Norway, as well as on the REDD deal between Norway and Guyana.
As of today cap-and-trade is not codified into international law neither is it part of an international treaty on reducing carbon emissions. Norway is not bound by any law or treaty to make a deal with any country that has rainforest. Yet Norway committed itself to pay Guyana $50 million a year to essentially earn carbon credits for itself, and for Guyana in return to preserve its rainforest.
Let the forest trees of Guyana breathe in and store carbon in exchange for the carbon emissions Norway must necessarily release into the atmosphere as part of earning its livelihood, namely, the production and export of fossil fuels. It was a mutual and fair deal neither party was pressured to enter into. So what is the justification for Thomas’s attack on one of the parties to the deal? Norway does not seek to colonize Guyana or take advantage of its forest resource.
In making this precedent-setting REDD deal, Norway has to be seen as a pioneering and generous nation – together with Guyana as a partner – to point the way forward in saving the planet. Did Guyana trade preservation of its forests with Norway at a bargain-basement price? There is no evidence of this. Maxwell, a letter writer to this newspaper claimed Guyana should be paid $68 million a year instead of $50 million. The truth is this whole business of precisely measuring and valuing carbon emissions is a new and emerging field for the world. The preliminary agreement entered into between Norway and Guyana is called an MOU, a Memorandum of Understanding – and I presume, all prices per ton and number of tons of carbon stored by our forest trees can be renegotiated and/or updated.
In last week’s article, Prof Thomas casts blame on Norway for being involved in the business of production and export of fossil fuels. So are Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia and a host of other countries, yet none of these countries feels any moral constraint about putting up money to preserve rainforests anywhere in the world. Also Norway does not force any country to purchase and consume fossil fuels. The consuming countries must take responsibility for their own carbon emissions.
How will Guyana utilize $50,000,000 a year? Every household in this nation has to shell out US$2.50 every few days to buy a 10-gallon container of filtered water. This is a heavy burden on families (tens of thousands) who earn less than US$12 a day.
A major priority of the government is to provide clean water to boil rice or make tea or coffee – or alternatively provide a water-filtering kit for each of the approximately 300,000 families who inhabit Guyana. Also, all the coastal villages abound with outdoor latrines and uncovered sewer-drains; the reality is that this whole country, including its capital city, is a veritable mosquito swamp creating hellish living conditions. What does it cost to relegate latrines and open sewer-drains to the dustbin of history? Use the Norwegian money to create better living conditions for Guyana’s 700,000 inhabitants.
What about Guyana’s trumpeted LCDS? Guyana should only boast of having a Low Carbon Development Strategy if it has plans to cap its carbon emissions at its current level; and to do this it has to rebuild its railway, double the price of gasoline, build hydro-electric power and provide cycling paths for commuters. And, if you need help on how to do this, just talk to the government of Denmark. Denmark is the only country in the world that has demonstrated and proven that a low carbon economy is possible and does work – their nation’s carbon emissions have not risen in the last 20 years. In the last 25 years Denmark has steadily raised its proportion of energy derived from wind and solar, and tens of thousands of its people gleefully and cheerfully park their cars and commute with railways and bicycles.
Someone has reportedly nominated President Jagdeo for the Nobel Prize for his path-breaking work in concluding the REDD agreement with Norway. Jagdeo deserves commendation for recognizing and seizing the opportunity to trade Guyana’s forests for big bucks, and while I don’t begrudge him the nomination nor the prize if he wins it, he must know he has a lot more to do to make Guyana a true LCDS nation.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud
