AVAILABLE evidence shows that both the islands of the Caribbean and Caribbean countries with coast lines are very vulnerable to global warming.
Although the scientific community appears to be divided on the extent of the damage to the world’s environment and the length of time that it will take for such damage to be irreparable, the fact is that damage is being done now. A further fact is that small islands such as those in the Caribbean and coastal regions are already being affected.
The one country that has taken a strong position against the Kyoto Protocol of the UN Climate Change Convention is the United States of America even though with only a small percentage of the world’s population, it emits 25 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases. I will return to this later. ﾠ
It now seems unquestionable that the increased intensity and frequency of hurricanes in the Caribbean can, in part, be attributed to global warming. Witness the disastrous effects of hurricanes Charlie, Ivan, Jeanne and Frances on The Bahamas, Cuba and Haiti, and principally on the Cayman Islands and Grenada in 2004.
Two recent events, apart from the debate that took place at a Global Conference in Argentina in early December 2004, cause me to focus on this issue.
The first is that a life-long Guyanese friend, Hutton Archer, a man who worked tirelessly in the cause of protecting the environment, dropped dead a few weeks ago immediately as he finished delivering the eulogy at another person’s funeral. The second is a discussion I had with Joy-Dee Davis a bright, intelligent, young Antiguan woman student at one of the world’s most prestigious universities.
She was writing a paper that originally took the position against the Kyoto protocol. She argued that the economic backlash for several important economies of the world that would be caused by actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would not be advisable especially in the face of the scientific uncertainty over the effects of climate change.
She said to me in a personal note: “Let’s face it; we’ll be dead by the time that ‘greenhouse gases’ damage the global environment irreparably”.
Joy-Dee might be right about the length of time that ‘greenhouse gases’ will take to damage the global environment irreparably. However, is that a reason to defer action to stop global warming? I argued with her that it was not, particularly as the islands of the Caribbean and elsewhere are already suffering, as are the coastlines of many countries that can ill afford the high cost of continuous sea defences; among these countries are Belize and Guyana both of whose coastlines are not only the habitat of most of their populations, but are also the centres for their main economic activity.
Beyond the argument of the present effect of global warming on islands and coast lines in the Caribbean area, should our present generation really be content to leave a legacy of “irreparable damage” to future generations? I think not.
Each generation rents space on the earth for the duration of our lives. That space was occupied before this generation and it will be occupied by others to come. We found the Earth – our single habitat – in reasonably good shape environmentally. ﾠOver time, we have polluted it, killed parts of it and rendered others unfit for anything to thrive. If matters continue as they now are, there will be irreversible ecological damage with dire consequences for the survival of all forms of life. ﾠ
I am pleased to say that Joy Dee Davis amended her paper to argue impressively in support of the UN Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. In a sense, I felt that her paper gave reason to the work of people like my friend, Hutton Archer, who had turned sixty just two days before his sudden death. He, and many others like him, have devoted their lives to protecting and preserving the environment not for themselves but for the benefit of future inhabitants of our common planet.
The point is: if we know that in the future greenhouse gas emissions are causing problems for some countries now and will damage the world’s environment significantly in the future, why is there disagreement on doing something about it now.
The answer boils down to issues of world governance versus national interests or, at least, national interest as perceived governments.
To understand this contention, we must first appreciate that The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement setting targets for industrialised countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions which, are considered at least partly responsible for global warming.
The protocol was established in 1997, based on principles set out in a framework agreement signed in 1992. Each country that signed the protocol agreed to its own specific target. EU countries are expected to cut their present emissions by 8 per cent and Japan by 5 per cent. Some countries with low emissions were permitted to increase them.
Russia initially wavered over signing the protocol, amid speculation that it was jockeying for more favourable terms. But the country’s cabinet agreed to back Kyoto in September 2004. Allegedly Russia’s motives for signing were not all altruistic. It is claimed that it agreed to join the Protocol in exchange for the European Union countries allowing it to enter the World trade Organisation.
The US had originally signed the Kyoto Protocol in the dying days of the Democratic Party administration of President Bill Clinton. When President George W Bush came to office, he quickly reversed the US position with considerable support from the US Congress. He said implementing the Kyoto Protocol would gravely damage the US economy. In domestic political terms, neither President Bush nor the US Congressmen were prepared to tell US industry to cut back on their dependence on fossil fuels and to develop alternative technologies.
President Bush also dubbed the treaty “fatally flawed”, partly because it does not require developing countries such as China and India to commit to emissions reductions. In other words, he believes that adherence to the Kyoto Protocol would put the economy of the United States at a disadvantage to economies such as China’s from which the US is already facing stiff competition.
Of course, the argument of the large developing countries is that global warming and other global environmental damage has been caused by the industrialised nations, and they should now pay the price of their excesses while developing countries get the opportunity to grow.
In Argentina in early December 2004 at the Global Conference on Climate change and the Kyoto protocol, the US refused to change its position. So too did the European Union nations and the large developing countries.
Powerless in all this were the small countries such as those in the Caribbean who are suffering from the effects of global warming without contributing to it in any significant way.
Where does this all leave Caribbean countries? The truth is it leaves us victims of the refusal of both the United States and large developing countries, such as China and India, to curb harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
The future of the world – and the immediate problems of small islands and countries with low lying coastlands – should not be matter for barter. In the 21st Century, there should be a more enlightened approach to governance of the common areas of mankind’s survival. And that enlightenment should be encouraged amongst all the world’s nations -industrialised and developing.
The Caribbean was not very active in Argentina in December at the political level. We should have been. Our region has the intellectual and creative capacity to propose solutions that could command the regard of the US as much as China’s.
Joy-Dee Davis, one of our bright Caribbean students, is thinking deeply about this problem at a great American university. Hutton Archer, one of our devoted and caring Caribbean citizens lived his life fighting the cause in the UN Environmental Programme and the Global Environmental Facility. They represent tens of thousands in our region. The problem of climate change and global warming are real for us. Our voices should be heard throughout the international community.
For various reasons, the countries of the European Union are playing a leadership role in climate change. Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair had pledged to make this one of two priorities of Britain’s presidency of the Group of Eight body of industrialised nations in 2005; this includes the United States. The Caribbean should give the EU active support not only in our own interest, but in the cause of preserving and sustaining life worldwide.
By Sir Ronald Sanders
(The writer is a former Caribbean diplomat, now corporate executive, who
publishes widely on the Caribbean in the international community).
