Opposition to fossil fuels is mainstream not extremism
The editorial ‘Another solar boondoggle’ of 9th October referred to ‘environmental extremists [who] hold that Guyana should not produce oil.’ To call somebody an extremist for opposing oil is silly. It suggests that the writer cannot justify Guyana’s oil production and wants to shut down freedom of speech by an accusation of ‘extremism.’ Opposition to fossil fuels is mainstream. Fossil fuels emit greenhouse gases that are killing the earth. Global leaders and institutions are shifting the world away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The editorial would make them ‘extremists.’ Let me share some examples with your readers.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) was set up in 1974 to ensure the security of oil supplies. In May it said there should be no new investments in fossil fuels. Are they ‘extremist’? The International Monetary Fund’s Working Paper ‘Riding the Energy Transition says that “The transition away from oil has deep implications….. To prepare for such a future, diversification away from oil should be the most crucial policy item on policymakers’ agenda in oilexporting economies. The USA’s Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement, as approved by President Biden, says the USA, “… will decarbonize the energy sector… shifting to carbon pollution-free electricity; ..... scaling up new energy sources and carriers such as carbon-free hydrogen. President Biden’s Executive Order of 27th January 2021 states that, “Responding to the climate crisis will require both significant short-term global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and net-zero global emissions by mid-century or before.” Is President Biden an ‘extremist’?
IMF research estimates that the fossil fuel sector gets about US$5.9 trillion a year in subsidies. It would collapse without these subsidies. In a recent IMF article Nick Stern confirmed that the IMF, the World Bank, and a growing number of academic, public, and private sector voices want to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and put a price on carbon. Why? To avoid catastrophic climate breakdown. Are these conservatives now ‘extremists’? A carbon tax would turn Guyana’s oil and gas into stranded assets. Is it ‘extremist’ to protect Guyana and the Guyanese people from financial disaster? 350.org is a planet-wide collaboration of organizers, community groups and ordinary people fighting for a fossil free future. Fridays for a Future is a separate global movement of 14 million young people demanding an end to fossil fuels. Are these millions of people ‘extremist’ for wanting to stop fossil fuels from killing the earth?
The judiciary says climate change is dangerous. Dutch courts ordered the Netherlands to cut its greenhouse gas emissions. They even ordered Shell to cut its emissions. Shell may now have to forgo new investments to extract fossil fuels and limit its fossil fuel production. An Australian court stopped a new fossil fuel project because it would emit greenhouse gas contrary to international law and the rights of future generations. Is the judiciary also ‘extremist’? The World Economic Forum says that to continue financing fossil fuel expansion is to fuel a crisis that will inevitably cause economic catastrophe alongside the climate emergency. Black Rock, the largest asset manager in the world, manages about S$7.138 trillion of assets. Its CEO Larry Fink recently warned investors that we, “have begun to see the direct financial impact as energy companies take billions in climate-related write-downs on stranded assets.” Are these staunch capitalists now ‘extremists’ because they are warning investors about economic
collapse from fossil fuels?
Guyana’s government has failed to make even a minimally respectable economic case for oil and gas. Is it ‘extremist’ to demand that the Government stops oil and gas until such time as the Government publicly provides its justification for exposing the Guyanese people to the growing danger of economic collapse? Guyana has a rich alternative future as a carbon sink. Each ton of greenhouse gas removed by Guyana has market value. As the breakdown of the climate system intensifies, as the ocean becomes more acid, as sea levels rise - every ton of greenhouse gas that Guyana removes will go up in price. Is it ‘extremist’ to demand that Guyana is paid a market price for removing greenhouse gas?
Guyana’s prosperity is being squandered by the government’s lack of vision and their determination to do oil/gas in defiance of market forces and the shift in the global economy. Which is ‘extremist’? To protect Guyana’s rich future as a carbon sink? Or to rush ahead with converting Guyana into a carbon bomb disaster?
Sincerely, Melinda Janki