Dear Editor,
There are two issues in the recent news that warrant a comment from me, in my capacity as Director of the University of Guyana GREEN Institute (UGGI):
1. It was reported in one of Guyana’s dailies that ERM’s Physical Scientist Matt Erbe correctly pointed out that it is the stock of (cumulative) global emissions that matters in the evaluation of the many of the local environmental impacts that we see; and that it would therefore be difficult, if not impossible, to attribute these local impacts to the Whiptail project.
I cannot speak for ExxonMobil Guyana, but the public statements from ExxonMobil Corporation would strongly suggest that it would be quite embarrassed by Mr. Erbe’s shoulder-shrugging comment, as it embodies the very “free rider problem” that has led to the climate crisis that now faces the world. But what caught my particular attention was that the gentleman proceeded to point out that there is a grievance mechanism for complaints related to the project.
Putting it together, what is being said is that Whiptail might be adding to harmful cumulative emissions, but that no damage – not even local impacts – can be attributed to it for its contribution to the stock of CO2; however, if you are able to prove that a local impact can be attributed to Whiptail, there is this mechanism that would allow you to make a complaint about it. As the most harmful impacts are probably those related to global climate change, the reference to the grievance mechanism only adds insult to injury.
2. When announcing the “matriculation rates” (i.e., schools’ average performance at CSEC), the Minister of Education reportedly asked, “What is that that they [i.e. the Bartica Secondary School] must do to make sure that they look more like Three Miles?” Quite apart from the unfortunate emphasis on the agency of the Bartica Secondary School, as if it even had the agency she implied, the Minister might want to consider that schools differ on many factors, some of which might be completely unobservable. That is to say, the
reference to “Same children, same air, same kind of food,” combined with the assumption of agency, leaves the sour taste of an attribution of fault, when in fact “causality” cannot be established.
We cannot rely on off-the-cuff observations when we are discussing something as important as school performance.
I close with a comment on another attribution issue. The LCDS 2030 makes reference to the carbon tax on `excess’ flaring, in language that implies that it was the Government that had conceptualised and designed this tax:
“To further dis-incentivise flaring, the Government has also implemented one of the very few taxes on flaring in the world – where approved flaring is subject to an environmental tax. The amount of the tax is set by Government, and as of mid-2022 was US$50 per tonne of carbon, along with payments for the actual gas lost.”
It would have been good to see a reference to the authors of the UGGI Policy Brief that conceptualised this tax, and in particular to me and my colleagues who ecstatically worked on its design, but I daresay that that won’t happen.
We pass on costs and assign blame to others, and take what doesn’t belong to us, as if “all ah we ah one.” I am certain that this is not what is intended by the One Guyana slogan!
Yours faithfully,
Thomas B. Singh
Director
University of Guyana GREEN Institute & Senior Lecturer
Department of Economics
University of Guyana
