Filenews 16 April 2024 - by Ken Silverstein
When the BBC asked Guyana's president if his country wanted to drill for oil in its maritime region, the journalist "heard" from the top official. The UK is hungry for oil, but Guyana is a poor country with pristine rainforests that absorb the carbon emissions created by richer and more developed nations.
Countries with rainforests have low per capita incomes and 29 of them have a negative carbon footprint. They are a step towards a solution to the climate crisis as governments around the world try to contain high temperatures. These countries would prefer to be supported financially to maintain their rainforests, but have not received substantial financial assistance for this purpose.
Some states, such as Guyana, Suriname and the Democratic Republic of Congo, have oil. Carbon neutrality means offsetting carbon emissions – not completely eliminating the oil needed to fuel the global economy. However, should the developed world buy oil from a country with a negative carbon footprint or from a more prosperous country responsible for excessive emissions?
"Do you know that Guyana has a forest the size of England and Scotland combined, a forest that stores 19.5 gigatonnes of carbon, a forest that we have kept alive?" said President Mohamed Irfaan Ali, who asked whether Guyana needed to extract oil and gas from its $150 billion reserves. Dollars.
Rainforest states are signatories to the Paris Climate Agreement, which requires them to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. As a result, they need to calculate emissions associated with oil drilling – potentially offset by the carbon dioxide their rainforests absorb. However, the country and the industries that consume the oil create these emissions – not the exporter.
If we supported the global South financially to maintain its forests, these countries would have more revenue than if they exported their oil. Developing nations rely on carbon finance to develop more renewable energy, buy technologies and preserve their rainforests. Last year the world emitted EUR 55 billion. tons of carbon dioxide pollutants. Environment-based solutions have reduced this amount by EUR 9 billion. Tons. Poorer nations with rainforests produce less than 1% of total carbon dioxide emissions.
Consider the Democratic Republic of Congo: its rainforests absorb 4% of annual global carbon dioxide emissions. Congo wants to increase oil production from 25,000 barrels per day to 1 million barrels, which would improve the lives of its citizens. Only 10% of the inhabitants of the African country have electricity.
"We are in a terrible dilemma," says Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu, a climate expert in Congo. "The country is part of the solution to the global climate crisis because of its forests. But we need to look at how to create jobs and income for citizens while enabling us to manage our forests and reduce poverty."
According to the U.S. Energy Administration, the U.S. is the largest oil producer, producing 21% of the world's crude in 2023. It is followed by Saudi Arabia and Russia, which are both largest exporters.
The crucial goal, as set by COP28 in Dubai, is to wean ourselves off oil. For this reason, a national registry has been created to calculate the amount of carbon dioxide emissions in relation to the reduction of pollutant emissions, which means that oil production is allowed as long as these emissions are offset. The aim is climate stability. Such commitments only make sense if they are enforced.
The American Petroleum Institute has advocated the introduction of a tax on coal use in order to encourage switching to other forms of fuel. The tax would start at $35-50 per ton of carbon emissions — money that would lower energy costs for low-income households and go into researching and developing cutting-edge technologies.
Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu notes that this is "the most effective and transparent way to achieve substantial progress towards the twin goals of reducing carbon emissions and economic growth".
Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Hess want to drill in Guyana's offshore area, which has a 2% tax rate – revenue used to fund education, health and infrastructure. Carbon dioxide levels in Guyana will certainly rise. Is it fair that the developed world continues to benefit from oil production, but not Suriname, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Guyana, which either have a negative carbon footprint or are close to it?
They have to account for all emissions from energy production – a quantity generally offset by rainforests.
Suriname has 600,000 residents with a per capita annual income of $5,000. Its economy is based on hydroelectric power and a small amount of diesel production. Since 1975, when it gained independence from the Dutch, it has relied on natural resources to fuel its economy – a mixture of gold, oil and bauxite.
Forests cover 93% of the country. The annual rate of deforestation ranges between 0.05% and 0.07%. As a result, Suriname will sell UN-certified carbon offsets.
"We are very vulnerable to climate change, even though we have absorbed carbon from the atmosphere," Marciano Dasai, Suriname's minister of spatial planning and environment, said in an interview. "If you buy energy from us, the money goes to the environment and our people."
States cannot fully advance the green transition in all areas. Some industries such as long-distance logistics, shipping and aviation will still need oil. Why not buy from an oil-producing country that is also carbon negative and can offset emissions with its forests?
Ideally, we will get rid of our dependence on oil. Until then, we need to offset emissions and give carbon-neutral countries the margin to survive.
