Dear Editor,
The impression I am getting from the published letters is that the majority of Guyanese have fallen hook, line and sinker for the global warming theory.
The feeling that saving trees and stopping oil exploration would save the planet is preposterous in the light of a multitude of scientific evidence, which says differently. This does not mean that poor environmental standards would not speed up man-kind’s personal destruction but the planet will remain and continue to change regardless of what mankind does or does not do. Guyana is basically at the beginning of its developmental process and is therefore, still too poor a nation to fall prey to developmental policies which may lead to a financial trap.
I remember learning in my ancient history class that the geography of the world was not always what it is today. Over a vast amount of time the world, which was one big mass of land and water, broke up with land bridges and great expanses of land disappearing into the sea while in other places sea beds came up to receive the sun. To stimulate a reality check to identify the changing pattern and complexity of our planet I would like to quote from Michael Crichton.
“Think about oxygen, necessary for life now but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a erosive gas like fluorine. But oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago. It created a crisis for all other life on earth. The plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas… nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself.
“In the thinking of human beings a hundred years is a long time. One hundred years ago, we did not have cars, aeroplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole, different world, but to the earth a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We cannot imagine its slow and powerful rhythms and we haven’t got the humility to try. We have been residents for a blink of the eye. If we are gone tomorrow the earth will not miss us.”
This reminds me of a SN editorial, which dealt with the cattle industry emissions of butane gas (I think) in New Zealand and Australia. In Australia, scientists are experimenting with replacing the sheep stomach with that of the kangaroo. For some unknown reason the kangaroo stomachs are more environmentally friendly. This is the absurdity and extent to which man wants to tamper with (nature) God’s work
I really do not care which side of the global warming debate you are on, but because the Minister of Agriculture seems to be a believer of what many call the global warming hoax, I am forced to speak up. Indeed, I do believe that global warming and cooling are real and I do understand that our coastal areas are in peril. I agree with saving and protecting our forests and back strict harvesting regulations, but forest longevity has a different meaning for me. It is about having and maintaining a unique product for a very long time.
My areas of concern are (1) de-emphasizing the exploration and extraction of oil, (2) attempts at the introduction of the manufacturing of bio-fuels at the expense of food production, and the restriction of forest usage to bargain for carbon credits.
It is dangerous for Guyana to utilize its fertile land to produce expensive bio-fuels. Also research has shown that it is questionable and very unlikely that there is enough land available worldwide to create enough bio-fuel in a continuously developing world.
Added to the extremely high cost of producing it, bio-fuel damages engines much faster than gasoline because it is water-based.
Guyana should be focusing on a mass agricultural programme to ensure self-sufficiency in food and have enough surpluses to target international markets if the world corn production goes to fuel cars. Guyana must also aggressively go after every barrel of oil within its borders to ensure cheap oil and oil products for Guyanese and encourage hydro projects to generate our electricity. Mark my words; oil will continue to be the cheapest way to growth and development and bio-fuels will not replace gasoline.
I do appreciate the fears of living on the coastal areas in Guyana. I also think that there is too much of a concentration of people there and I would emphasize the need to develop all new communities on higher ground. What I do not agree with is the suggestion of a wholesale movement of dwelling from the coast thus giving up thousands of acres of agricultural lands to the ocean. The Dutch reclaimed the land. Should we give it up?
What is the attitude of the people of New Orleans who experienced the 2006 hurricane disaster? New Orleans is a huge bowl well below sea level. Rebuilding is taking place in New Orleans, not on higher ground but right back in the bowl.
Guyana has some simple options for dealing with flooding and the ocean. Our sea defences need to be strengthened while our engineers look at the possibility of installing drainage pumps at three to five miles intervals along the sea wall. The drainage patterns along the coast can be redesigned to facilitate the drainage pumps after calculating the required amount and the rate of water disposal necessary to alleviate flooding.
This, in a nutshell, is the strategy I feel Guyana should be adopting. America is the most powerful nation in the world, China is now so rich that they are giving loans to America. India is right there behind those two powerhouses but all are just giving lip service to carbon dioxide reductions.
In the midst of all the planet saving sentiments the Saudis are ordering bigger aeroplanes and Al Gore is not giving up his. Why should poor Guyana be forcing itself to be a pioneer in this venture, which is guaranteed to keep the nation poor?
Get on the developmental highway I say to Guyana. Maybe we can think about carbon dioxide reductions if and when those powerhouses are successful at getting it right. At that time we should be already super rich if we approach this right.
Yours faithfully,
F Skinner
