We need to convince the USA, China, India of the political importance of them supporting our LCDS

Aug 19, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I had promised in my last letter to the press that I will outline why India’s position on climate change will contribute to our Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) failing at Copenhagen.
However, before I proceed to that issue; there are a few more weakness of our LCDS I would like to highlight:
1. The G-20 must have the motivation and the willingness to compensate those whom are preserving their forest.  Thus in this time of reducing global economic resources and the overwhelming demands from their home market for job and wealth creation programmes, there is very limited opportunity for Guyana to benefit from any serious financial flows.  The US Government is right now spending billions of dollars increasing the efficiency of their cars and their industries with a view of stabilizing their carbon emission. How would Guyana respond if the US Government states they will complement these initiatives by planting millions of new trees at home and at the same time creating jobs for their citizens?
2. The UNFCCC and its REDD programme clearly have laudable ambitions, but this global economic crisis came at the wrong time, since it is constraining any action by the main polluters to support the work of the UNFCCC in helping many poor developing countries.  What many of the G-20 countries have started to do is to use their economic stimulus package to scale up their own renewable energy production, increase their environmental protection programme to create new jobs and enhance their energy conservation at home. The G-20 countries are busy advancing their development plan with their own money (or in the case of the US, borrowed money).  What are we doing in Guyana?
3. We do not need to convince the UK, the EU, Norway or Switzerland about the LCDS, since that is like speaking to the converted. We really need to convince the USA, China and India of the political importance of them supporting our LCDS. As Jagdish Bhagwati said, “If Copenhagen is not going to be a shipwreck, initiatives to bring the US back to sensible thinking is necessary”.  Have we done our part to make the USA aware of our plan? Have we highlighted for the USA, India and China how the LCDS will help them politically and economically? Why have we not met Obama on a one to one basic and his Energy Secretary to discuss our LCDS and demonstrate how we can help each other?
4. Guyana will not see the flows it may be expecting from Copenhagen and this is because McKinsey needs to explain how it arrive at US$580 million annual as the value of our forest. I know for a fact that there are many species and sizes of trees in our forest that have low economical value (not every tree in our forest is a greenheart tree). Thus, it would have been a very inexact science to value our forest without doing a comprehensive audit of the stock of commercially harvestable trees and there is no mention of this process being followed in the LCDS.  Thus, this valuation and its associated quantum of financial compensation are questionable at minimum. Do we have the details of the comprehensive forest audit if the USA asks for a copy in its consideration of compensation?  If the USA says it would want to do a sample test of the forest to certify this figure, will it stand up?
5. The LCDS states that if Guyana reaps its forest, it will have negative consequences for the world.  So what? If the G-20 countries decide to plant trees by the millions, then it become irrelevant to the world what Guyana does with its forest.  I hope it has become clear why this document is weak, since it is being positioned as if we have the political leverage to instruct the world.  The most we can do is ask a Sir Shridat Ramphal calibre team to soften the political stance of the powerful and work for the best.  Let us make it clear in our minds, Obama, Manmohan Singh or Hu Jintao would not lose any sleep if Guyana cut its forest down and we must stop deluding ourselves.
6. The powerful of the world will repair the environment but on their terms, to the benefit of their people and this is where I will raise India’s position. The confrontation between China and India on one side and the USA on the other side over climate change initiatives is a disaster in the making for Copenhagen. India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh (a very close ally of Sonia Gandhi) stated, “India has been among the lowest emissions per capita, thus there is no need to face, actual reduce emissions”. He further went on to state, that India will not “discuss signing up to any legally binding obligations to make absolute cuts in greenhouse gas emissions for at least 10 years”.
These statements were made when Hillary Clinton visited India in July 2009. If India and China does not sign on, where is Copenhagen? Just another talk shop with more communiqués and platitudes.
I trust that analytical minds in Guyana can understand why it is concerning that; while we pretend to be global leader in climate change, other countries are spending their taxpayer money pursuing a long-term development plan (Even the USA is engaged in such a programme with borrowed money). Unfortunately, we are being set up as the poster child for the climate change lobby that will provide little to us at this point in time. However, this climate change initiative will contribute to us losing focus of our principal developmental agenda.
Advocacy against the grain by one of your own is most unnerving for any political class, especially if they are struggling to provide answers to the issues.  My advocacy is not an attempt to be in the spot light or to undermine this document,  but is being driven by a deep concern that we are continuing to lose valuable time running on the spot as a country as we allow ourselves to be distracted by what Copenhagen can or cannot gave us.
All Guyanese should feel most disappointed as we continue not to deal (as a top priority) with the main obstacles to our development – social cohesion, hydropower, unchecked crime, jobs and wealth creation for the masses.
The fact of the matter is, we are losing ground as a country again and the PNC is not the cause this time around. Any soldier of righteousness must fight this backwardness today, just like how we fought the PNC in the past.  I know the taste of power is sweet but at the end of the day, it is subservient to that higher calling of a politician – serving the working class.
Any member of the political class, who is busy exclusively looking after himself or herself at the expense of the people, must ask themselves, what are we going to tell the ‘maker’ when we arrive at the curly gate or when our soul is released from this material body? It is not too late to help the masses and get me out of the letter columns (so I could spend more time in my garden before the next winter dawn on us) since my only issue is to advocate for the provision of services to the poor and the powerless by the powerful political people.
Sasenarine Singh

---

---