Dr Clive Thomas

Solution or source of  global climate change In this week’s column I shall wrap up the discussion over the past few weeks of the key lessons that should be learnt from the recent Copenhagen climate summit.

Thus far over the past two weeks I have highlighted in these columns what I believe are six very important lessons, which should be learnt from the recent United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC) held in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Last week I started to identify, in no particular order of importance, those vital lessons that should be learnt from the recent United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change held in Copenhagen, Denmark, which are needed for a careful evaluation of the LCDS and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Government of Guyana and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway.

As I have pointed out earlier, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Government of Guyana and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway and its associated Joint Concept Note are best evaluated in the context of the outcomes of the recent United Nations Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change and global warming.

As we saw last week the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Government of Guyana and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway provides for two sets of conditional payments by Norway. 

‘Dirty secrets’ I hope that I have already indicated clearly Norway’s double standards in its climate change and global warming actions.

I hope that by now readers would have realised that Norway can in no way be looked upon as Guyana’s Santa Claus.

For this week’s column, let me begin by re-emphasizing a couple of observations I have made about global inter-governmental negotiations thus far, as I continue to evaluate the low-carbon development strategy and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), between the Government of Guyana and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway, as well as its related Joint Concept Note between the two parties to the agreement.

In this column last week I started what I hope will be a fairly full assessment of the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS).

Last week I concluded my rather extended discussion on the current global economic crisis and the lessons to be learnt from this.

Several readers have expressed surprise and disappointment on reading in last Sunday’s column that the G20, which includes so many former champions of poor countries in the global economy are now flagrantly doing what the rich G7 countries had been doing for decades previously.

In last Sunday’s column I had described the many pledges made in the past by rich countries to come to the aid and support of poor countries as the ‘fool’s gold’ of international economic diplomacy.

Guyana and the wider world CARICOM and the G20 In my column last week I was at pains to acknowledge the astounding rise of the G20 grouping of countries to the undisputed lead position in international efforts to contain the global economic recession, financial crisis and credit crunch.

Recap Last week’s column responded to three queries readers had raised in regard to my earlier discussion on trade.

Guyana and the wider world Last week I indicated that I would respond to three queries which readers have raised, before turning to evaluate the trade policy proposals of the G20 for resolving the current economic crisis and hopefully establishing a secure platform for the robust resumption of global trade.

Why Trade Matters At times of global economic and financial crisis keeping trade open matters in this the new age of explosive globalisation.

In the coming weeks I shall seek to establish why it is I believe that trade policy, at the global and national levels, represents the third and final important lesson to come out of recent worldwide efforts to cope with the global economic recession, financial crisis and credit crunch (squeeze).

Guyana and the wider world Optimism The current state of the global economic crisis, one year after the financial meltdown of last September (2008), provides a crucial backdrop for consideration of the third, and final lesson to be learnt from global and national efforts to cope with economic recession, financial crisis and the credit squeeze.

Four concerns In last week’s consideration of the pros and cons of conditional cash transfers as a policy tool for fighting the increased poverty and economic distress occasioned by the global economic crisis I referred to the results of impact evaluations of these schemes, mainly in Africa and Latin America.

Guyana and the wider world Within the international economic community there is a growing consensus that the worst is over.