Equality as a goal

Few would not be willing to declare that “equality” is not one’s goal or practice. We know, however, that our world in general, and Guyana in particular, is far away from this goal, and we must ask ourselves, “Why?” The reasons are legion, but one is inherent in the protean nature of the word itself. For instance, almost everyone will agree with the statement, “we are all equally human”, but what does that mean? Isn’t it a tautology? We are not equally tall, strong, intelligent, or beautiful. So whither equality? Equality, from this perspective, has, therefore, to be contingent on the context or criteria wherein we speak. We can choose any area of endeavour or personal attribute and then discuss whether or not we are all equal.

For instance, the Commission on Ethnic Relations or any other government-sponsored initiative promoting equality will be concerned with all the citizens of our country. Thus, we are concerned with their equality as citizens of the State: equality in reference to all that the State offers its citizens. The State was founded to secure the rights of all citizens, so when discussing equality from a national perspective, we should ask in which way are the citizens of a country equal. Here there would be broad agreement that if we are all citizens, we are all equal, or we should be equal in the possession of the rights guaranteed by the State. Ideally, it follows then that if particular citizens do not have rights or equal rights, then no citizen has rights. It also follows that if some citizens have rights, all citizens have rights.

What this means is that since for purposes of analysis, we can group humans, as any other object, by whatever criteria we choose, we can classify Guyanese by gender, class, ethnicity, etc. If rights were equally distributed to all citizens, then no matter how we categorise groups, each group would have equal rights and thus equal power. However, if the rights were denied to members of a particular classification while others enjoyed those rights, the deprived group is said to be oppressed in that it does not have an equality of power. In Guyana, unfortunately, some groups are claiming greater rights because of criteria like “greater suffering”. In human societies, oppression has been perpetuated on all fronts: thus, a poor woman may be oppressed simultaneously and interjectionally on the basis of her gender, class, ethnicity, age, religion, and race. Each of these forms of oppression is ultimately debilitating, in that they cause pain, and suffering and stifle the humanity of the victims; societies have to prioritise their activities since resources are limited.

Even if we are to limit our field of endeavour to the rights of all citizens to have equality of rights, this leads us to other problems. For instance, since men are not factually equal, equality of rights will lead to material inequalities as those who are better endowed with the badges of society’s success forge ahead. This dilemma has led many to extend their definition of equality to mean, additionally, equality of results. Now while this may be desirable, we have to concede that this goal implies a distribution that is based on some notion of distributive justice, but will impinge upon the liberty of many citizens. Equality from this perspective demands a more extensive and intrusive State, and this can open its own can of worms.

One of the major problems with this stress on the equality of results by the State is that it ignores the fact that only a part of the relevant circumstances depends on governmental action. For example, 'equality in education' is not only contingent on having equal access to the best schools, but also just as importantly, or maybe even more importantly, requires a cultural acceptance of the demand and discipline to inculcate education. And so, for material wealth, etc.

In Guyana, there are expectations that "equality" means equality of results which can never be achieved because of life’s contingent realities.

Dear Editor,

In order to rationalise this view, a reasonable question to ask is: What would happen to the world and to the life of people if all of the oil companies were to cease oil production forthwith? To lend context to this notion, let’s examine an overview of the global energy transition agenda and its potential impact on the future of the global oil and gas industry.

The global transportation sector is one of the main drivers of demand for crude over the next 30–50 years, and at least 40% of the world’s energy needs would have to be supplied by oil and gas by 2050. Hereunder stated are some interesting facts:

Global stock of commercial aircraft

• Global commercial aircraft fleet stood at 29,000 in 2020

• Estimated to grow by 4% annually to reach 39,000 by 2028

• Annual production is 1000

• It takes 5-6 years on average to build an aircraft, in some cases 10 years

• To replace all the aircraft in the world, it will take 29,000/1000 = 29 years to build and replace, plus 10 years to develop electric planes. Total number of years to replace all the aircraft globally to electric will be approximately 39 years.

Global stock of cars

• As at 2020, this figure is some 1.2 billion cars globally, of which 7.2 million are electric cars (6% of global cars are electric)

• Global average rate of production for electric cars is 2.1 million; which means it will take 571 years to replace all the cars in the world to electric cars.

Global stock of trucks/ commercial vehicles

• As at 2020, an estimated 425 million, of which 27.2 million, or 6.4%, are electric commercial vehicles

• The annual average production rate of electric commercial vehicles is 6000; at which rate it will take 70,833 years to replace all the commercial vehicles in the world to electric at the current rate of production.

Global stock of ships

• As at 2019, total world fleet of ships stood at 95,402

• It takes about 18 months to build a ship

• Ship orders per year is about 1000

• Therefore, it will take 95 years to replace the global stock of ships to greener ships, at the current rate of production

Global Energy Transformation 2050

• Oil and gas are still forecast to meet more than 50% of the world’s energy needs by the end of 2040

• Renewable energy needs to be scaled up at least six times faster for the world to achieve the goals set out in the Paris Agreement, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA, 2018).

Contextual summary

The global transportation sector is one of the main drivers of global demand for crude oil products. If the world, therefore, stops extracting crude oil, and indeed leave all the fossil fuel in the ground tomorrow – then it will take 39 years to replace the global stock of commercial aircraft to electric aircraft; 500+ years to replace all the cars in the world;

70,833 years to replace all commercial vehicles, both light and heavy, which include trucks; or increase global output by 142,000% to bring down the number of years to 50; and 95 years to replace all the ships in the world at the current rate of production.

By 2050, renewable energy can make up 60% of the world’s final energy consumption, provided that renewable energy investments are scaled up by at least six times (IRENA, 2018). Consequently, if the world economy fails to scale up renewables and other alternative sources of energy by six times, it will take more than 100 years for the world economy to transition to at least 60-70% alternative sources of energy, and over the next 100 years to fully transition to 100% clean/alternative sources of energy.

I end by asking this question again: What is the international transparency advocate’s true modus operandi?

Yours sincerely,

Joel Bhagwandin Financial & Economic Analyst