THREE COINS IN THE FOUNTAIN

Aug 10, 2008 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

I am calling on all Guyanese, especially our Parliamentarians, to be extremely vigilant in this, the final terms of the Presidency of Bharrat Jagdeo.

I am seeing a rocky road ahead, because of certain initiatives which are being pursued by the Government.

I am giving advance notice to all concerned that we need to closely monitor the international agenda of the Jagdeo Administration before things get more complicated for our country.

There are three things that are happening that need close monitoring. In fact, I would seriously suggest that before the President of Guyana commits Guyana to any of these three initiatives, the Guyanese people should, through their elected representatives, have a debate on the subject.

The first of these is the movement into ethanol production. This is a misguided direction into which the Jagdeo Administration has been lured.

I believe that there are ethical considerations involved. I have dealt with this in previous columns, but it is worth repeating here.

The world has a food crisis, in part because food is being diverted for the production of energy. The former Cuban leader Fidel Castro has warned about the ethical dilemma that this diversion creates, a dilemma which will see food prices rise and millions face possible starvation simply because food is now being used for energy.

Guyana should have no part in this. While the Government may be tempted to justify its consideration of ethanol production in Guyana, no benefit that Guyana attains can outweigh the moral obligation we have to ensure that global food supplies are adequate to feed the planet.

While, also, it has been argued that Guyana will not be using existing production in the making of ethanol, the whole undertaking is misconceived, since Guyana does not have the labour force to enter into the massive production required to bring new sugar cane lands under cultivation for eventual conversion to ethanol.

Even if the new fields are capital intensive, there will be a need for significant labour for this undertaking. Guyana does not have such a labour force, and what will happen is that GuySuCo, which is finding it difficult to get sufficient workers to go into the fields, will find that its labour force is further depleted by the competition provided by those interested in growing cane for conversion to ethanol.

Economically and ethically, therefore, the movement into biofuels should be a non-starter. It is simply not in Guyana’s interest to go down that route, and our Parliament must insist that all public funding for this form of alternative energy be halted.

A lid must also be placed on this pipe-dream that our President is pursuing concerning our rainforests. I find it nauseating that Guyana should, under the banner of arresting climate change, be seeking carbon credits for our standing rainforests.

Guyana is not a major polluter of the environment. Guyana therefore should try to sustainably exploit its forest resources.

It should not allow itself to be conned into keeping its forests intact in return for funds, since all this does is unethically shift the responsibility for the offending emissions from the developed world to poor countries.

This idea that we should be rewarded for keeping our rainforests intact is morally reprehensible, since it is simply a way in which the developed world can pay us for their failure to avoid their responsibilities to reduce greenhouse emissions.

This is what the carbon credit scheme is all about. It is about the rich countries, which need to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases, luring countries such as Guyana with significant forest cover, to accept payment for keeping our forests intact, so that the rich countries can avoid their responsibilities towards reducing greenhouse emissions.

I consider the proposal by Guyana, to keep its rainforests intact, as a form of environmental prostitution.

I, however, support the Government on the third controversial initiative. I agree with the President about the Economic Partnership Agreement.

I am however not pleased with the Government’s response. I think, with the EPA, what we have is a bad deal of which Guyana should have no part.

The Government of Guyana needs to issue an ultimatum to CARICOM. They either go along with us in not signing the EPA, or Guyana gets out of the regional grouping.

Guyana should not be part of any signing of the EPA, and if needs be we should be prepared to quit CARICOM on this issue.

Guyanese must carefully monitor the Government’s actions with respect to these three issues. We should support the Government on the EPA, but should categorically reject the excursions into ethanol production and its carbon credit scheme.

---

---