Dear Editor,
150 years ago, the world had other values. They thought that pollution could be solved by garbage collection. The concept that our lifestyle choices eventually affect us gradually sank in with the development of laboratory chemistry and biology. But only in the last 50 years has a new subject called Environmental Science been created. Our own UG did not manage that until 30 years ago, and only in this century did CXC get into the act.
Life began to be valued, monetarily: more highly by the rich for the rich than by the poor for the poor. (The social scientists can study various combinations of how the rich value the poor and the poor value the rich). As education spread, the poor began to recognise the inequities and are trying to push back against exploitation, only sometimes violently responding to the imposed continued violation of their spaces. In Guyana we are fortunate to have some wise judges in the judicial system, who can begin to redress inequities and reduce the burden of responsibility on the ordinary people, whose economic outputs would have to be used to repay any debt.
There has been what the scientists call a ‘paradigm shift’ in values during the 150 years the study of natural sciences developed and became available to the ordinary person. There is now increasing precedent for damage to the environment to become quantified as much for the poor as for the rich. More and more people are becoming aware of the value of land and ecosystems.
The BP Macondo oil well blowout is a well-known example of spiralling costs. People are valuing their living space and livelihoods more and we can no longer say some things are unprecedented. Our judges can now give consequence to the recognition that things are not the way they were when the rich could dictate their values to a poor, supposedly sovereign country and not be liable for damages in excess of any insurance cover they may have. Guyana and the Caribbean should be entitled to claim as much as, say, litigants in the USA would be able to get.
Technology has also advanced, learning from each mistake, so it is unlikely that previous mistakes will be repeated. Therefore, it should be easier to safeguard guarantees to poor Guyana. Parent companies cannot hide from their responsibilities in the developed countries so they should not be allowed to do so in Guyana. Since our Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has allowed itself to become pliant, signed parent company guarantees will keep the oil companies and their shareholders vigilant to ensure safety. Most ordinary Guyanese would like the oil to be exploited by the best qualified oil companies in the business, but fairly.
Yours faithfully,
Alfred Bhulai
