Ruminations want it to be pellucidly clear: Guyana has a moral and sovereign right to fully utilise its oil and gas reserves for national development, to reduce and eliminate poverty, for economic, social, cultural and physical transformation, and for families to live more prosperous lives. There is categorically no need to justify Guyana’s optimal utilisation of oil and gas resources, no need to apologise to anyone, not to the local naysayers, not to local and international news agencies, for using oil resources. In fact, we would be irresponsible if we were to leave our country and our people poor because we left oil and gas below the sea level.
There are many countries, almost all of the rich Global North countries, which have used oil and gas resources to escape poverty and to transform their economic, social, cultural and physical infrastructure. Why then should Guyana not utilise our oil and gas resources to achieve similar transformation?
Every single time, international news agencies interview President Irfaan Ali; they raise the issue of how Guyana justifies extraction of oil when fossil fuel is a major contributor to greenhouse gas, global warming and climate change. These international news agencies join some local naysayers who have demanded that Guyana stop production of oil because it is morally wrong for Guyana to produce fossil fuel, which leads to global warming and climate change. It is as if Guyana is the cause of global warming and climate change.
These questions and the local naysayers who demand Guyana leave oil and gas below the sea bed ignore that Guyana’s first oil was only in 2019/2020. But global warning and climate change started many decades ago. Guyana has played absolutely no role in the unprecedented greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and climate change which presently plague the world. The naysayers keep asking President Irfaan Ali and other Government leaders if they are not concerned that Guyana is contributing to environmental degradation and to climate change. There are countries that have been producing oil for more than 100 years now. Yet, no one is asking them if they are not concerned about their countries contributing to global warming and climate change. Indeed, many of these countries are the ones which are responsible for increased greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and climate change.
When has anyone heard any news agency asking an American president how he reconciles enriching his country with oil resources with his country’s contribution to global warming and climate change? Has anyone asked Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, Brazil, Canada, and other oil-producing countries this question? Has anyone asked the UK, Norway, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, Nigeria, Ghana, or any other oil-producing country how they reconcile their oil-based wealth with their contribution to atmospheric carbon reaching more than 420 parts per million (ppm), far above the 300 ppm considered as the upper limit before there are catastrophic consequences?
Some of these countries have been producing oil for more than 100 years. But suddenly, Guyana, which now produces about one million barrels per day, worries these charlatans. A former foreign minister of Norway who had signed an agreement to pay Guyana $250 million over a five-year period, compensating Guyana for preserving its forest as a gift to the world, recently described these naysayers as arrogant for questioning Guyana’s right to fully utilise its oil resources. It is sheer arrogance and mischievousness that Guyana is targeted.
But even with the rapid growth of oil and gas production, Guyana remains a carbon-sink country. For example, Guyana’s pristine rainforests, which cover more than 85 per cent of the country’s landmass, store more than 19.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Guyana has pledged to preserve this asset as a commitment to the global efforts to combat greenhouse gas emissions. This is not just for Guyana. This commitment is for the whole world, making available Guyana’s rainforest to serve as a planetary carbon sink. While it is true that Guyana earns some carbon credit, the world is not equitably and fairly compensating Guyana for this service.
To add salt to the injury, there are local and international stakeholders who want Guyana to give up the opportunity to use oil and gas resources to develop our country. It is this resource that has allowed Guyana to expand, diversify, and improve the non-oil economy. While much attention has been given to the fact that Guyana’s GDP ranks as the fastest-growing GDP in the world in the last six years, we must acknowledge also that oil and gas resources have contributed to the significant growth of the non-oil economy.
The pertinent and fair question is whether Guyana’s fortune is utilised to uplift the economic and social status of the population.
The naysayers insist that the massive investment and transformation of the physical infrastructure which is visible in Guyana is not helping the average Guyanese family, using the mantra “people cannot eat roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, etc.” But for the tens of thousands of new homes that have been built, the tens of thousands of new vehicles, and the tens of thousands of Guyanese children with better health and education, we know that without oil and gas resources, these benefits and opportunities would not have been possible so rapidly in Guyana.What is important to remember is that fossil fuel continues to be in demand and continues to be needed. It is expected that the demand will continue to be present and even increase by 2050. Guyana’s oil and gas resources, therefore, contribute to the global demand. For those who continue to question Guyana’s commitment in the fight against climate change, we ask this: would the world pay us to leave oil and gas below the sea level?