Is the President telling the truth?
DEAR EDITOR,  It was reported (KN Sat. June 26, 2021) that President, Dr. Irfaan Ali has said that unless the targets that were set at the Paris Agreement in 2015 are realised, the world can expect to experience future water disasters and setbacks to the Sustainable Development Agenda. It is inconceivable how Guyana can be drowning in water, while our neighbours Brazil and Venezuela are experiencing severe drought. The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius = (35.6 degrees Fahrenheit) preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. To achieve this long-term temperature goal, countries aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible to achieve a climate neutral world by mid-century. The Paris Agreement is a landmark in the multilateral climate change process because, for the first time, a binding agreement brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects. Gas flaring is a typical catastrophe with varying implications for the nation. For these implications, there is increasing public concerns about its continued practice. The critics aim at creating awareness, for the well-being of host communities of the oil flow stations in the Niger Delta, about the impacts of flaring gas. In Nigerias Niger Delta, the flaring process is usually very close to residents and farmlands and has been implicated in serious environmental degradation of the region [1]. Etim et al. have noted that gas flaring and consequent carbon dioxide emissions contribute greatly to deforestation and climate change, leading to overheating, heavy rainfall and flooding as well as soil erosion. Also, in this era of rising gas utility, both for domestic and export needs, flaring is an economic wastage. According to Madueme, the economic cost of total gas flared is quite staggering, which implies a great wastage of investment opportunities to the sector and expected contribution to gross national income of the nation. The associated impacts of gas flaring can be divided into direct and indirect contributions and are evaluated in terms of their influence on changes to the ecosystem. A typical indirect contribution is prevalence of security risks, including youth restiveness and other social strife as can be seen in the increasing number of murders in Guyana by our youths of recent. Flaring of natural gas does contribute to climate change, because it releases carbon dioxide. This rain in turn acidifies lakes, streams, and damages vegetation. Other pollutants deplete soil nutrients harming agriculture. In addition, there can be health implications of flaring, including cancer, lung damage and skin problems. Does our government even care about us or our children breathing in these toxins or are they waiting for the inevitable to happen before doing something positive. It is well to remember the old Guyanese proverb boat that gan a-fall cant tun back. My fellow Guyanese dont believe anything the oil companies say, their interest is far from Guyanas wellbeing. KN Sun. June 27 ran an article, Gas to shore project could kill fish, other marine life, peaked my interest on how the United States is able to provide propane gas to 123 million households (not people) in the continental US without endangering the fish and other marine life there, while telling us, a country with fewer than a million people and even less households gas-to-shore projects could kill the fish and marine life in Guyana. The flaring of oil-associated gas continues to generate insidious environmental and energy consequences against efforts toward sustainable development. Regards,  Gloria Holder