Dear Editor,
In his letter captioned “Article 32.3 in the 2016 PSA restricts the sovereignty of the nation and should be reviewed to determine its legality” ( Stabroek NewsDecember 30, 2024) Mr Jamil Changlee writes, “There are factors which may require the urgent and necessary intervention of the Government in the oil and gas sector so as to ensure the safety and security of the region. One such factor could be the impact of localized climate change”.
Mr Changlee who identifies himself as “Chairman, The Cooperative Republicans of Guyana” is a frequent letter writer and critic of the current government of Guyana. Also, I recall from his much earlier letters that the Cooperative Republicans of Guyana is a budding political party. Consequently, Mr Changlee may not be an impartial analyst of the government’s policy on oil and gas. In his letter he continues “If it (oil and gas production) is shown to have an adverse impact on the occurrence and severity of the hurricanes and other negative climate events such as those recently experienced by the Caribbean, then we as a nation must take the necessary and responsible steps towards altering our actions in the oil and gas sector”.
In my view, Mr Changlee, as an aspiring political leader, should be able to assess the available data on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission and be able to arrive at a decision, rather than hoping for someone else to make a determination for him. Leadership requires one to make tough decisions in times of uncertainly and with limited information.
When one looks at the available facts and the emerging expectations globally, even if Guyana should abandon its developing oil and gas industry, the country and the Caribbean will not avoid the adverse impact of climate change due to global GHG emissions.
The data for 2023 from the 2024 report of EDGAR (Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research) in the table below is revealing:
Million tonnes
Country CO2 equivalent
Guyana 8.19
Venezuela 152.39
Brazil 1,003.14
Argentina 374.76
Chile 121.46
USA 5,960.80
Globally 52,962.90
From the figures above and considering that Guyana is surrounded by Venezuela and Brazil, can one expect Guyana’s emissions to be more devastating in the region than those of Venezuela and Brazil? As well, a week ago, Guyana experienced a dust storm due to sands from the Sahara desert which travelled in the atmosphere for a distance of over 9,000 kilometres. In a similar way, can one expect global GHG to remain within the borders of the major GHG producers? The four other South American countries, noted above, in the same continent as Guyana, all have exorbitant GHG emissions in comparison to Guyana’s very small output. Also, let us remember too that the next President of the USA is committed to “drill baby drill”. This means that the USA which is the second largest producer globally of GHG will most likely increase its annual output. With the USA as the northern neighbour of the Caribbean, this region cannot be unaffected by GHG emissions from the USA.
As the Guyanese President and the Vice President have consistently pointed out, Guyana has the second largest acreage of tropical rainforest in the world which absorbs multiple times the country’s output GHG in the form of Carbon Dioxide. While some, both locally and internationally, quibble about these claims, it is interesting that a 2016 report for the NSCL Foundation for US State Legislatures by Jocelyn Durkay and Jennifer Schultz notes “Forests absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in different repositories, called carbon pools, which include trees (both living and dead), root systems, undergrowth, the forest floor and soils. Live trees have the highest carbon density, followed by soils and the forest floor…The U.S Forest Service reports that the nation’s forests and forest products offset nearly 16 percent of domestic carbon dioxide emissions by storing 866 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year”. Guyana’s rainforest most likely has been absorbing and continues to absorb a significant amount of the excess that the US forests cannot handle as well as emissions from farther afield.
Sincerely
Harry Hergash
