Dear Editor,
It is contradictory for Guyana to have been a signatory to the December 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, yet pushing the development of the oil industry. The net effect of more oil on the world market can only be a further increase in the pollution of the earth’s atmosphere.
Similar to our being paid by Norway to conserve our forests in the interest of the environment, couldn’t a mechanism be explored whereby Guyana might be compensated by the developed countries to keep our oil in the ground? Couldn’t we then use those compensation funds to facilitate and install alternative energy systems for the entire country? This idea is not as far-fetched as it might sound. Support for this proposal might be found in the same Paris Agreement, which promises to provide assistance, “including finance, for nations to build clean, resilient futures.”
But another thing bothers me. I have always had concerns about our involvement with ExxonMobil, which has for years denied the science behind climate change, and which, according to the New York Times is now under investigation for having “funded outside groups [including a Smithsonian researcher] to undermine climate science, even as its in-house scientists were outlining the potential consequences ‒ and uncertainties ‒ to company executives.” The Times went on to suggest that “…the need to limit change might require much … oil, coal and natural gas be left in the ground.”
ExxonMobil’s reputation was further stained a few days ago when the Rockefeller Family Fund decided to “eliminate holdings” of ExxonMobil, saying the oil company had misled the public about climate change risks.
Whatever decision is taken, it will have consequences for generations to come. Guyana needs to exercise considerable caution.
Yours faithfully,
Clairmont Lye
