Dear Editor,
The overtopping at Vryheid’s Lust, East Coast, Demerara must be assessed within the context of climate change. Therefore this sudden burst of spring tides should not only concern residents within that area but all other sections of Guyana because it is more than water flowing over the seawall, it is part of a wider global phenomenon, whose effects are felt in every local community in Guyana, the region and the world. We must act now because it is already late. This action must be done at two levels- government and individual.
Governments have a serious responsibility to protect the lives and properties of their citizens as well as every citizen has a personal obligation to secure not only their assets but also the environment in which they live. However, it has been long suggested that governments do not usually work as efficiently as they are expected to. As a result, the burden to ensure the integrity of the environment rests heavily on citizens. In this sense, the security and preservation of the natural world is the duty of all citizens because without it human life could not exist, at least not in its present physical form. This includes taking account of the changes it is experiencing due to any number of human activities, from the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, to clearing lands for the construction of factories, to exploring natural resources, to redirecting the course of rivers and streams, to appropriating additional lands for developmental projects.
Unfortunately, this frightening phenomenon has not been given the priority in our society that would allow for much needed public awareness and appropriate action among stakeholders. For example, we are in the process of completing an interstate facility between Guyana and Brazil but has anyone calculated the impact of the anticipated direct and indirect activities of this road on our environment? Again, the exploration of oil with the possible construction of an oil refinery, in Berbice, in the not too distant future, is absolutely plausible. Notwithstanding, its benefits must be weighted against its cost to the environment. We are pushing ahead with development and that is good but must we develop at any cost; or should we pursue development even if it is not sustainable?
The answer could only be no! But who is drawing up the standards for our environment? Again, how much are we spending on adapting, adjusting and educating local communities to climate change?
I am aware of the very laudable projects such as the Iwokrama rainforest initiative- and the effort towards bio fuels ( this has its own challenges) but how much of what we are doing as a nation is being translated into practical everyday activities which the ordinary man can appreciate. We need to close the wide gap between national environmental objectives and the daily challenges people face in their local communities. This is fundamental because national environmental efforts may be counter to local traditional cultures and therefore may very well be resisted. For instance, in some cultures, religious works require special shells and stones found on the shoreline. But the removal of these helps the process of erosion which results in weakening the sea defences. Critical to such national environmental efforts must be involvement of local communities, through consultation and dialogue.
Generally, there seems to be a throwaway culture in the city.
It is now extremely fashionable for people to throwaway, for example, a mobile phone they bought two weeks ago to acquire the latest and more advanced model. This culture is affecting the environment in two ways:
First, this disposable culture is the main driver of the environmental challenge we now face because there is a greater demand for products by consumers. Manufacturers exploit the environment to obtain the materials to produce the consumer goods. There is a greater demand for energy which is generated from fossil fuels to manufacture such products. This continues to affect the ozone layer and increase global warming.
Second, the improper disposal of these items puts at risk the entire natural environment and its inhabitants. For example, plastics stay in the environment forever. These materials are not only harmful to birds and fishes (syringes, cigarette lighters and toothbrushes have been found inside the stomachs of dead seabirds, which mistake them for food) but also negatively affect the ecology of the earth. Every piece of plastic that was manufactured for the last forty years is still out there in the environment. Yet, there is an excessive use of these non biodegradable materials by citizens. Supermarkets and other businesses over package certain products and give an extra plastic bag to shoppers.
These are disposed of as soon as the customers unpack their purchases. Most of these materials end up in the waterways or at the landfill site causing great harm to the environment. Clearly then, we have to change the way we do things.
The media can and should do much more to highlight the many environmental challenges we face.
Yours faithfully,
Royston King
Executive Director Environmental
Community Health Organization