In the island of Bali, Indonesia, at this time, the fate of this world and consumers in this world is being decided. One hundred and ninety countries are taking part in discussions concerning climate change from December 3 to 14. ‘Climate change’ is a concept that consumers refuse to take seriously. They do not realize that action can be taken to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases and to protect countries in some way from the effects.
In a guest editorial in the Stabroek News on November 22 the writer said:
“What is missing sometimes is awareness by citizens across the globe, and particularly at the national levels, of how such events and activities will impact for the good on their lives and on the environments within which they live.”
What we, as consumers, find unacceptable is that the Bali Conference is, as far as we see, for governments only and Consumers International which speaks for consumers worldwide does not appear to be participating. It is said again and again that consumers should be involved in all decision-making that concerns their future. Consumers International should be present in Bali; consumer views and government views do not always coincide.
There is a report in the Guyana Chronicle of December 5 that “Bali climate talks advance despite squabbling.” Why should there be “squabbling” when the world faces a sea level rise of between 28 and 43 cm and a probable increase in global temperature of 1.8 and 4 degrees centigrade. We are not yet so familiar with the metric measurements as to determine what these increases would involve, but we are certain that any increase in global warmth will impact adversely on us and a continuous rise in temperature will make the earth uninhabitable.
There is reference in the guest editorial to Al Gore’s award-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. This may have been made public previously, but now that consumers are beginning to take climate change seriously, it seems an opportune time to show it again. More consumers will awaken to the fact that their voices will make an impact on the decisions made by governments. The least we can do is to remind our governments of their social responsibility to save the environment.
One such measure is to save the forests. In Guyana we have already begun to take this matter seriously and steps are in train for this. Some time ago Ms Bulkan was warning of the devastation that would take place on some of our timber grants with the invasion of foreign investors. Our own timber producer, John Willems, has said “The protection of Guyana’s forests has largely come down by the system of selective logging that has been practised in conjunction with the very simple rule of not cutting trees under 12 m in diameter.”
In giving consideration to what can be done to halt the climate change, we face a new set of acronyms, for example, REDD – Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. The guest writer speaks of HFLD (High Forest Low Deforestation) countries, like Guyana, which maintain low deforestation rates anyway and thereby reduce the level of greenhouse gases, but that this results in HFLD countries being left out of any new framework being proposed in the UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).
The concluding paragraph in the editorial holds out some hope of economic development through the HFLD. It states:
“Creating economic value for the carbon stored in our tropical forests, while ensuring sustained conservation of forest assets and reducing the impact of climate change will also open up opportunities for economic development that generates wealth to provide the goods and essential services required by the population of HFLD countries.”
Let us hope that squabbling ceases and all countries recognize their social responsibility to the rest of the world.
