Dear Editor,
Your editorial captioned “Preparing for the Bali conference on climate change” (07.11.22) provided a timely summation of the problems facing our world due to the predictable effects of climate change. Many people are conscious of the arguments as explained by Mr Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth yet the likely effects on Guyana do not seem to have excited more than a quiet hope that those predictions would occur beyond our time. Our selected delegates to the Bali Conference would meet with people who are well briefed and prepared to safeguard their interests. Hopefully, we may be able to study our position in time and negotiate effectively.
My prime concern is the likely effect of sea level rise on our living conditions. The implications for Guyana are almost frightening and I would place ourselves in the category of those countries which inspired the remarks of the President of the Royal Society, a prestigious body of scientists and engineers founded by Sir Isaac Newton, when he advised, “It should compel us towards action rather than the paralysis of fear.”
I have been following the arguments on climate change and sea level rise since 1989 when the late Bob Camacho, an engineer who was formerly Director of Drainage and Irrigation in Guyana, addressed a meeting of High Commissioners at the Commonwealth Secretariat in London on the probable effects on the coastal and river defences of Guyana. Again, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting at Kuala Lumpur in 1988, the Iwokrama Rainforest Project was presented and I was part of the Guyana delegation. At the Rio Summit in 1992, Iwokrama was discussed in the light of preparing for sustainable development in anticipation of the effects of climate change. These three activities have not inspired much international support. Now it appears that the application of carbon credits is being proposed as a panacea for the intensive denudation of forests in some poor countries that have tended to ignore the adverse effects of such action. But carbon credits would not be enough in Guyana’s case.
More recently, on September 24 last, I was privileged to be invited to attend a lecture entitled ‘The Global Challenges of Climate Change’, given by Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK government. The lecture was intended to be further enlightenment of the scientific community on this important subject. It was held at the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine shortly after the Queen had granted the college a Royal Charter establishing its status as an independent university.
While stressing the uncertainties of making accurate forecasts, there was enough information on climate change to enable an intelligent assessment of the speed of change. It seems likely that in about 30 years the earth would be very seriously affected by global warming. It could be sooner. However, Sir David’s intention was that despite the threat facing us now it could be reduced by close co-operation between developed and developing countries.
My interpretation of this is that Guyana would need, and should seek, substantial assistance in combating the effects of sea level rise – a problem, which does not affect all developing countries.
Some countries would actually gain land and resources as a result of climate change. Both polar ice caps have begun to melt. Russia, Canada and Norway have claimed sovereignty over the seabed below the North Pole, as it is known to be rich in oil deposits. Britain has claimed ownership of part of the Antarctic because of her sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, and Chile and Argentina have made similar claims to exploit the seabed beneath the ice, as this would become more accessible when the ice melts.
The Guyana coast is at sea level, or a little below at high spring tide. Our main rivers discharge into the Atlantic and their water levels would rise also. Witness the flooding of the East Bank Road at Friendship at high tide. When a critical point is reached, Georgetown and New Amsterdam will be outflanked by a rise in river levels as well as by the ocean. Only a few inches of water on the land would be enough to make settlements uninhabitable.
If one were to take a profile level on land from the Atlantic southwards towards the Rupununi, it would be found that the first 10 miles are more or less at sea level, and levels rise over the next 20 miles slightly above sea level.
It is conceivable that a continued rise in sea level off the Guyana coast would threaten the first 30 miles of our coastal plain. If ever we were forced to retreat, it should be beyond 30 miles inland. But no one has ventured more than a guess at the rate of sea level rise; only that it will happen.
When engineering considerations are given to the effects of the sea level rise on the coast of Guyana it is difficult to comprehend how major schemes for land development, drainage and irrigation are planned without first testing our adaptive capacity to counter or restrict the effects of sea level rise, unless it is believed that this will not happen.
Sluices will become silted, drainage restricted, sea defences would become more susceptible to erosion and storm surges; both water conservancies may not function as designed and pure water will be difficult to obtain. Sugar and rice cultivation would be seriously affected. A gradual retreat and relocation will become inevitable.
If Sir David King is right and the adverse effects of climate change could be obviated by co-operation between developed and developing countries, then Guyana would need much financial assistance to formulate a new national adjustment policy.
It will be unfortunate if we allow the lure of carbon credits to give some other body control over the utilization of our own resources and we should hesitate to surrender such control.
Above all, we must remember that we have a moral responsibility to our unborn generation to leave an asset base more robust than that which we inherited. This calls for debate at a national level.
Yours faithfully,
Philip Allsopp
