A conversation beyond climate conference in Copenhagen

Nov 18, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Climate change appears to be almost inevitable. Still for all, leaders will gather in Copenhagen at a special conference to make an effort to stop it or at least to come up with a plan to find a resolution to the problem. But can they agree on a policy that is of any real substance that will permit change?
At the end of the day, there will be a new climate agreement, but it would not have enough weight to force countries to cut green house gas emission by 2020. Therefore, we need to begin to look beyond Copenhagen.
In another few weeks, over 40 world leaders and other concerned delegates would assemble in Copenhagen for the conference on climate change. Ironically, their paths to that conference would be heavily paved with carbon. The long flights and drives, the bottled water, the use of communication and allied equipment, including computers and cell phones will no doubt enhance even in a temporary way, the very thing they will gather to fight against.
Still, the conference must be seen as a serious one. It represents a global struggle against climate change. This is crucial because no country can by itself fight against this phenomenon; it is global and requires a global response. One of the main drivers of this environmental challenge is globalization. It has collapsed distance and time. Local events are shaped by happenings in other parts of the world. In Guyana, we can see environmental disasters in real time half way around the world. The production of biofuels in one part of the world influences the cost and supply of food in other countries. The world is a “global village”.
Therefore, this forum will provide the opportunity for leaders to unite in their quest to stabilize climate condition. Unity is a good thing, but in this case its utility could only benefit representing nations if it is underpinned with a deep sense of urgency for environmental stewardship and justice. Urgency is not the same as rhetoric. It is demonstrated by calculated action that strikes at the core of a particular purpose. Saving a burning planet should be the express purpose of the conference. Given the general, not so positive, tone of some leading heavy industrialized nations towards assistance for poor and vulnerable countries, it is clear that there will be a new agreement in Copenhagen, but it is not likely to contain sufficient substance. As a result, it is highly possible that green house gas emission would continue to rise beyond 2020.
In this context, I believe that we, in Guyana, should begin a national conversation on climate change. This is quite different from the one we have on the Low Carbon Development Strategy. The public consultations on Low Carbon Development were good and purposeful but there needs to be another conversation, at the national level, that provides space for the ordinary people in their local communities, to share and participate in a wider strategy to deal with climate change and its effects upon their daily lives.
Citizens must understand the role they are required to play in combating this environmental challenge. They must have easy access to information on projects and activities whether those activities are to raise sea defences, construct more dams and canals, and develop new settlements on higher lands in other areas of our country and the use of alternative sources of energy. This would not only permit the authorities to benefit from local knowledge, but also give citizens a sense of ownership and responsibility for the protection of the natural environment of their local communities. This leads to a wider point.
Historically whenever an environmental disaster occurs ordinary citizens face the blunt of such problems. In many cases, ordinary people do not have the wherewithal to remove themselves from environmental situations, which impact negatively on their well being and the health of their communities.
Take for example, the recent disgraceful environmental situation with Trafigura, in West Africa, where 30,000 poor people were affected by the improper disposal of toxic waste from oil, the attempt by that company to cover its dirty deeds and later to pay over a palpable sum to victims. Or the Bhopal spill, in India. Nearly, 25 years ago, the world’s worst industrial tragedy occurred in Bhopal. Union Carbide had been warned that an accident was waiting to happen. On the night of December 3, 1984, it happened. Tank 610 disgorged its contents: methyl isocyanate, a derivative of the phosgene gas used as a chemical weapon in the First World War and a key ingredient of the pesticide Sevin that the company was making for the Indian market.
In 2005, in Guyana, we had our share of natural disaster. Floods affected all of our local communities in many different ways. The memory of that flood combined with the knowledge that Georgetown is 6ft below high tide should frighten us into more sober environmental action. The poor suffered the most. Had it not been for swift action on the part of both the government and civil society, the situation could have been worst, particularly for the poor and vulnerable.
But except the disaster is really sudden, it is always the ordinary people who are vulnerable and sometimes helpless, in the mist of terrible environmental troubles. Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that they be given the allowance to participate in any programme or strategy to address the phenomenon of climate change. Their voices should be heard. This should be done in a national conservation, in the public sphere – the space between the private lives of citizens and governments. This is a fundamental point because a vibrant public sphere permits a strong democracy. Here is where mediating forces must work assiduously in the interest of people.
One such mediating force is the media. It is described as the fourth estate; the gate-keepers of information that flows in and out of society; the mirror that reflects the nature of and the events within society. I am contending that the principle way in which the media can contribute to the cause of the environment is by cultivating social spaces for public discourse about it. Media systems should be widely accessible.
Information should circulate freely without government intervention to restrict the flow of ideas. This is necessary not only for a strong democracy but a healthy environment.
The media can contribute immeasurably in a national conservation on the environment.
This is particularly true when one considers that the media should serve the people rather than the market or potential customers. Looking at what obtains in Guyana, it does appear that the media give very little space and time to things environmental. It is all about death, crime, scandal, and corruption. These are important and citizens need to be informed.
They are also good for circulation numbers -”If it bleeds it reads”. However, there is a frightening global event unfolding more rapidly, it seems, everyday in our world – climate change. Yet, media spare little time reporting on it or providing space for a national conservation, in which all citizens can participate.
A glance at our dailies as well as local television channels would show that, except for one newspaper, there is precious little reporting on the environment or climate change on a daily or even weekly basis.
This is unacceptable in a situation where the capital is 6ft below sea level and about 70% of the nation’s population resides on the coast. It is unacceptable for a nation that is poor and vulnerable to climate change. It is unacceptable for a country that has donated a substantial amount of its carbon cover to help in the global struggle against climate change.
However, the media are increasingly market-oriented, embroiled in competition and serve the interest of powerful corporations and those well connected in civil society. There are those liberals who will earnestly contend for a market model and shun the contested notion of social responsibility of the press.
Notwithstanding, in this new media environment with advances information/communication technologies, including the World Wide Web, the internet and mobile phones, new communities and public spheres are developing permitting ordinary and marginal voices to be heard all over the world and therefore new interactions with and reactions to environmental events.
Our leaders will go to Copenhagen next month, but that conference will end with another promise to do better next year. Unless we begin this conversation now and decide how each and every one can help we would become more vulnerable to the harsh effects of climate change
Roy on King
Director Environmental Community Health Organisation

---

---