Peter Espeut
I AM happy to see that, finally, President George W. Bush has come to admit that the phenomenon of global warming is not just a figment of a scientist's imagination. It's impact is obvious: the average temperature of the world's oceans and seas is rising, which is melting the polar ice caps, causing sea level to rise.
The London Free Press reported last week (7-7-2005) that "Sea ice off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador was below normal for the 10th consecutive year and the water temperature outside St. John's harbour was the highest on record in 2004, according to a report released yesterday by the federal Fisheries Department. ... Water temperatures were above normal right across the North Atlantic last year, from Newfoundland to Greenland, Iceland and Norway".
THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
But despite this eleventh-hour conversion, President Bush still will not support the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which cause global warming, because, he says, it will hurt the US economy. These words best demonstrate the profound struggle taking place globally between the environment and what passes for development. It is a political, economic and moral issue. The imperative of nations to achieve economic growth every year is recognised and accepted; but the issue is whether this imperative is to be pursued in such a manner that the quality of the local and global environment declines; or put another way, in an unsustainable way
The moral standards we hold will guide our choices. The fundamental question is whether the drive for economic growth is a higher moral imperative than maintaining the health of the planet. George Bush says yes it is: he will not do anything to hurt the US economy; that comes first - even before preventing the effects of global warming on the world.
GLOBAL WARMING
He prefers to see stronger and more frequent hurricanes, the destruction of beach tourism in tropical places like the Caribbean, the spread of tropical diseases in temperate climes, and small island states swallowed up by rising seas (to name a few of the effects of global warming) rather than eliminate the more environmentally damaging components of the US economy. For President Bush, the unfettered growth of capitalism is a higher moral standard than sustainable development.
Last week during the G8 Summit in Edinburgh, Scotland, the US stood alone against the rest of the developed world on this point. Outside the Gleneagles Hotel, hundreds of thousands of massed demonstrators from civil society mostly of the first world protested on this and other points. The US gave a little, but largely remained resolute.
Where does our government stand on this matter of the environment vs unsustainable development? To know the answer you have to look at deeds rather than the words. When you look at the damage in Hunt's Bay caused by government dumping, when you look at the damage to Long Mountain caused by the housing project originally planned for Hope Gardens, when you look at Sandals Whitehouse built against the recommendations of Government's South Coast Sustainable Development Plan.
GOVERNMENT POLICY
When you realise that Government policy has continued to result in the highest rate of overfishing in the Caribbean and probably the world, when you realise that at one time we were judged to have the highest rate of deforestation in the world, and when you look at the financial deprivation under which Jamaica's national and marine parks struggle, when you look at these and so much else you have to come to the conclusion that Jamaica is on the same unsustainable path as President Bush.
When you look at how persons in Portland Cottage and elsewhere have been allowed to build in the middle of mangrove wetlands or on sandy beaches under the noses of government officials, when you see marginal housing projects like Kennedy Grove in Clarendon and Nightingale Grove in St. Catherine pushed through either bypassing proper environmental assessment or in spite of the best advice, you cannot truthfully accuse the government of being overly concerned with environmental matters.
ENVIRONMENTALLY UNAWARE
It seems to me as a close watcher of Jamaican affairs that if Prime Minister Patterson were to say that "I will not hinder any project from taking place in Jamaica for environmental reasons because it will hurt Jamaica's economy" it would not be far from current practice, and definitely puts him in the same bed as Bush.
Jamaica, sadly, is not a very environmentally aware country. It does not seem that too many people care about the unsustainable path we are on. Certainly few Jamaicans would take part in any demonstration similar to the protest by hundreds of thousands of (mostly white) first world people around the G8 summit. As the level of the sea rises around us, maybe we deserve what we get.
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is executive director of an environment and development NGO.
