AS SIMPLE AS ABC

Aug 14, 2014 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The environmental lobby did not begin with climate change. Climate change is a creature of the environmental lobby. Climate change is a new phase in the development of financial capitalism.
It is intended to convert the environment into a commodity. This is why there was introduced into the environmental lexicon the notion of environmental services. By so doing, it is possible to attach a financial value to the processes of nature such as the release of oxygen and the absorption of carbon dioxide.
By attaching a value to these things which are traditionally taken for granted, financial capitalism hopes to place these “commodities” on the market and trade them. In fact, there is already trade taking place in environmental credits.
The environmental lobby, however, preceded all of these developments. It even preceded the disastrous oil spills of the 1970s and the birth of environmental groupings such as Greenpeace.
The environmental lobby began, ironically, with the idea of sustainable development. Developing countries were, since the late 1970s, sold the idea that “environmental catastrophism” would result unless greater care was taken of nature. By the 1990s, the mantra of sustainable development had taken centre stage and had become part of the formal economic literature.
This did not require any empirical development or deep theorizing. In fact it was as simple as ABC. It rested on a common-sense principle supported by a moral argument. The moral argument was that it was necessary for us to preserve what the Creator has given to us. We would not have been doing our duty as human beings if there was not greater harmony between nature and human action.
This was the moral argument. The common sense principle was that if humanity and economic development is to be sustained it is necessary to use our natural resources in a way that would cater for the needs of future generations.
Developing countries were encouraged to not engage in mass exploitation of their natural resources, because this would deplete these resources and leave very little for future generations. And many developing countries got hooked on this idea of sustainable development. The environmental was then born.
The prime beneficiaries of sustainable development were not developing countries. They have little to show from pursuing sustainable development.
Point me to a country which has successfully pursued sustainable development that has brought significant benefits to its peoples.
In fact for many countries, sustainable development became an excuse for not doing more for their peoples. These countries could argue that the reason why they did not pursue greater extraction/exploitation of their natural resources was because of the need to cater for the needs of future generations.
The prime beneficiaries of sustainable development have been the forestry sector in the developed world. Sustainable development did not excessively target oil exploration. It did not target the exploration of minerals and ores obtained from the earth. It targeted the forestry sector. Developing countries were encouraged to not deplete their forests, because to do so would go against the tenets of sustainable development.
And who benefitted as a result? The timber sector in the developed world benefitted the most. That timber sector reaped the most benefits as a result of sustainable development. And those entities are attempting to reap the same benefits from climate change.
The advocates for action to stem what is being deemed as climate change have pointed out that some 17% of greenhouse gas emissions emanate from the clearing of forests. The advocates are not saying anything about the other 83%, including emissions from factories and motor vehicles. But they want developing countries not to cut down their forests.
Sustainable development was used to try to discourage countries like Guyana from entertaining large-scale investments in our forestry sector during the rise of the Asian Tigers. Major forestry deals were lined up for Guyana. These were cancelled when the Asian crisis hit.
Otherwise, there would have been many more Bai Shan Lins before Bai Shan Lin. At that time it was the investors from the Asian Tigers that were targeted. Now it is the investors from China and India who are searching for resources to sustain their growth and who are being targeted.
Developing countries are again being warned to be wary of these investors from China and India, because they will plunder your resources and leave very little for future generations. The same old tale is being reproduced
But the peoples of developing countries have enjoyed nothing but deprivation because of sustainable development. Instead of sustainable development, these countries are keen to have sustainable jobs for their people, a sustained flow of revenues to support development, and the benefits of increased foreign exchange earnings from exports so as to enjoy a healthier balance of payments situation.
If the foreign investors can provide along with these things – sustainable jobs, revenues and foreign exchange earnings –  there is no disincentive for them not to be given concessions. Is there?

---

---