Dear Editor,
I received a copy of Bill Gates’ new book; ‘How to Avoid a Climate Disaster’ compliments of a good friend of mine in the US; the book arrived the day after a story in mainstream media headlined ‘Gov’t has signed Letter of Intent to sell carbon credits.’ According to the newspaper story, President Ali announced that ‘Guyana recently signed a Letter of Intent with a US-based NGO to market and sell Guyana’s carbon credits to private companies around the world.’ The story went on to inform that; ‘This agreement has the potential of earning millions of US dollars annually’. For its part, the US-based NGO said it will act as an ‘intermediary between tropical-forest countries and the private sector to mobilize finance to support emissions reduction in deforestation’. In his contribution to the launch of ‘Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest (LEAF)’ Vice President Jagdeo said, “…the eco-systems services provided by the world’s standing tropical forests … will enable people who live in forests and forest countries to create jobs and economic opportunity from an economy that works with nature instead of today’s reality where forests are often worth more dead than alive.” Apprehensions in the newspaper’s story notwithstanding, the approach adopted by the Government of Guyana in this matter, struck me as one that any tropical forest-country, should pursue particularly in respect to global greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, the shifting dynamics have resulted in a market that allows tropical forest countries to trade carbon credits in exchange for financial resources.
The observation made in the newspaper story, that the initiative should have been discussed with stakeholders, and that the process used to select the US-based NGO is questionable merits a response. The bottom line is that from a developing country’s perspective, the initiative augers well for Guyana’s future. Reading Gates’ and the Government of Guyana’s visions, it is not difficult to discern the contrasting views held, though the strategic objectives are the same in respect to harnessing greenhouse gas emissions and avoiding the disastrous consequences of global warming. The arguments advanced by Gates are of direct relevance to greenhouse gas emitting companies located within industrialized nations. Gates recognizes that industrialized countries bear’s first responsibility for tackling global warming as emissions grow. For his part, Gates suggests that a climate disaster can be avoided by encouraging companies and CEOs in those countries to temper their greenhouse gas emissions by putting in place internal mechanisms and by investing more in research and development. According to Gates, incentives can help avoid a climate disaster ‘… by making carbon free things cheaper and by making carbon-emitting things more expensive’. Gates further suggests that ‘by progressively increasing the price of carbon to reflect true costs, governments can nudge producers and consumers towards more efficient decisions and encourage innovations that reduce ‘Green Premiums.’
Herein lies the dialectics of climate change. Governments in tropical forest countries want to take advantage of eco-services systems provided by their tropical forests as a means to mobilizing resources for rapid development. Whether the CEOs, their governments and other major players will accept his plan is another matter. The COP 26 Climate Change Conference scheduled for November this year in Glasgow in the UK will figure that one out. It is generally accepted that the perils of climate change and the avoidance of a climate disaster are global problems that requires a global solution. A holistic approach is obviously the best way forward. We live in a global village, and though Gates’ arguments as well as those advanced by the Government of Guyana follow a certain pattern, there is a clear divergence due to economies of scale and external policy initiatives. According to Gates, ‘There are various ways, including a carbon tax or cap-and-trade programme, to ensure that at least some of these external costs are paid by those who are responsible for them.’ More than twenty years ago, Cheddi Jagan in advancing his appeal for a New Global Order, called for a tax on greenhouse gas emissions or a pollution tax as a means of mobilizing resources that would go towards the establishment of a Development Fund whose resources would be used to fight poverty in developing countries. Jagan’s proposals have since evolved. A global market place now exists where carbon credits can be freely traded within the meaning of North/South cooperation thus facilitating a win-win situation. At the end of the day, avoiding a climate disaster and mitigating global emissions with a view to reaching carbon neutrality are mankind’s ultimate objectives.
Sincerely,
Clement J. Rohee
