While President Ali has earned plaudits for his push back to questions recently from the BBC’s Hard Talk host, Stephen Sackur, there are several issues which require a refining of Guyana’s position so that it doesn’t endanger its forest legacy or bequeath a carbon bomb to the planet.
Any suggestion by interviewers, whether Mr Sackur or others, that Guyana should not be exploring its oil resources should be rejected outright. Context, however, matters. Mr Sackur, in all fairness, asked about the climate burden of potentially US$150b worth of oil and gas being extracted offshore over the next decade or two.
How much exactly will be drawn from Guyana’s mother lode is unclear though if left only to ExxonMobil and the PPP/C government there can be as many as 10 platforms in the Atlantic or even more producing a mind-boggling amount of oil and gas. The figure that is often referred to as a benchmark for the immediate future is a million barrels of oil equivalent per day compared to the current approximation of 645,000 from three platforms out in the Atlantic.
Just for ease of reference, each burnt barrel (approximately 42 gallons) of oil produces around 0.43 metric tons of CO2. This means that, on average, one barrel of crude oil can produce about 5.2 pounds of CO2 per gallon. This is just one barrel. Each and every Guyanese should take that into account. The majority of the oil will be burnt elsewhere but Guyana retains a moral culpability over this combustion considering the grave climate consequences the planet faces. It cannot be oblivious or uncaring about this simply so that it can monetize all of these resources to the use of a very uncertain and unsteady quality of governance. Its decision to use associated gas for energy production is ill-advised and will lead to higher emissions from the country.
On December 1st 2023, in his remarks at the opening of the World Climate Action Summit, UN Secretary-General António Guterres, as he has been doing for years, issued a stark and dire warning.
“Earth’s vital signs are failing: record emissions, ferocious fires, deadly droughts and the hottest year ever. We can guarantee it even when we’re still in November.
We are miles from the goals of the Paris Agreement – and minutes to midnight for the 1.5-degree limit. But it is not too late. We can – you can – prevent planetary crash and burn.
“We have the technologies to avoid the worst of climate chaos – if we act now.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has charted a clear path to a 1.5-degree world. But we need leadership – cooperation – and political will for action.
And we need it now…
“The success of this COP (Conference of Parties) depends on the Global Stocktake prescribing a credible cure in three areas. First, drastically cutting emissions.
Current policies would lead to an earth-scorching three-degree temperature rise.
So the Global Stocktake must set clear expectations for economy-wide Nationally Determined Contributions presented by all countries that cover all greenhouse gases, and align with the 1.5-degree limit.
“The G20 – which represents 80 per cent of the world’s emissions — must lead.
And I urge countries to speed up their net zero timelines, to get there as close as possible to 2040 in developed countries and 2050 in emerging economies.
Second, we cannot save a burning planet with a firehose of fossil fuels.
We must accelerate a just, equitable transition to renewables. The science is clear:
The 1.5-degree limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels.
Not reduce. Not abate. Phaseout – with a clear timeframe aligned with 1.5 degrees”, the Secretary-General said.
As a current member of the UN Security Council where climate jeopardy will be increasingly focused on, Guyana has to show a readiness to balance its needs against the threat posed to the planet by the unrestrained production and consumption for hundreds of years.
President Ali’s riposte to Mr Sackur citing Guyana’s forests was unfortunate. The forests of this country have been conserved in major part due to their composition – clear felling was never an option as harvestable species had to be selected – and a lack of accessibility which will change with the buildout of infrastructure toward Brazil and elsewhere.
The forest riches of the country are not to be touted at some bazaar in exchange for a licence to burn oil indiscriminately. They are to be respected and conserved and only leveraged in a way that does no harm and in full alignment with the constitution of the country and the need to consult. Undoubtedly, the carbon stored in our forests will not be exceeded by the emissions from Atlantic oil and gas. That is however no licence to behave negligently and profligately.
As has been said for years in these columns, Guyana urgently needs a depletion policy approved by Parliament. It cannot be what has been uttered in some government circles: extract as much as possible and as soon as possible. That would be pure environmental and climate anathema. This is where some well-thought-out and costed government policy is needed. What is the cost of reorienting Guyana’s economy from oil and gas and in which direction? What percentage of oil revenue must be assigned to inter-generational equity? What must be allocated to a stabilization fund? What must be assigned to responding to disasters? What is required for growing defence needs in the wake of the ongoing threats from Venezuela? How much is required to run the country efficiently for the next forty years? That is the amount of oil that must be extracted and monetized. The rest should be left in the ground until needed or the climate crisis is abated. There is no such thinking at Freedom House or the Office of the President, in Parliament or even in the ranks of the opposition. Guyana and its people are being poorly served by its leaders.
There was one other major point of note that should concern all Guyanese. When pressed by Mr Sackur on why his government was permitting ExxonMobil to get away with a deal that is depriving Guyana and Guyanese of billions of US dollars, the most that President Ali could say was that the deal was skewed in favour of the oil company but that contract sanctity had to be taken account of. That was a pathetic response on which President Ali should have been pressed further.
The controversial 2016 Production Sharing Agreement caters for changes as long as both parties agree. There are many ways in which Guyana can encourage ExxonMobil to return to the negotiating table to rectify what was a most unjust deal foisted upon a country without skilled negotiators. If President Ali was really interested in defending the rights of Guyana and Guyanese he would have already brought ExxonMobil back to the table. His failure to do this over 42 months will be seen as dereliction by the presidency.
The riches that are now available to Guyana have to be used judiciously to improve the standard of living for current and future generations, prepare for a non oil economy and help to ensure livable conditions on the planet. These cannot be achieved by the single-minded focus on extraction and infrastructure by the Ali administration.
