Melinda Janki’s apologist wallows between confused and patent nonsense

Dear Editor I write with reference to a letter by Gary Girdhari, in which numerous personal attacks are levelled against me.

Gary Girdhari says “[Ms. Janki] is a lawyer and environmentalist, and is quite able to speak for herself.” Yet, like a typical man infected with paternalistic masculinity, he opts to defend her, no doubt under the contradictory assumption she cannot do so herself. This part of Gary Girdhari’s letter amounts to confused nonsense.

Let us now move to the parts where he wallows in patent nonsense.

Rather than defend Janki on the basis of the relevant literature on oil and gas, climate change, and development, Gary Girdhari tells us about his past indulgences in cigarettes and liquor. Instead of an analytical engagement, he uses his personal regrets and failures in life to make a case about fundamental questions spanning from national economic development to dynamics at the level of World Order.

Editor, allow me to pose a few questions to Ms. Janki directly, since it is obvious that her wannabe intellectual defender cannot possibly be constructively engaged. My question to Janki is this: Can you state with clarity which countries in the world over the past one hundred years have contributed most to greenhouse gas emissions, and especially to CO2? Could you say something about the current top producers of fossil fuels, and also the top countries that consume fossil fuels? Let us work with the available data.

And now, a final question: Why are you picking on a small country that has a comprehensive green-economy strategy (our LCDS), rather than say Canada, which is now building a pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia to ship some of the most toxic (tar sands) products in the world energy supply?

Let me share some relevant data. Here are the per capita motor vehicles for selected countries – USA 890; New Zealand 884; Canada 790; Finland 790, Australia 782, France 668; Guyana 285; Haiti 11. Thirty-five of the top 40 per capita motor vehicles in the world are in the Developed World.

Transportation sources contribute 27 per cent of greenhouse emissions.

Meat consumption for selected countries per annum– Portugal 153kg; USA 151kg; Spain 148kg; Japan 97kg; Guyana 51kg; India 12kg; Ethiopia 7.3kg. Meat consumption contributes about 15% of greenhouse gases, and readers should know that while the Third World countries consume about 27kg of meat per an- num, the Developed World eats 70kg.

We can take other quality-of-life indicators, such as air conditioning, to see who is doing the damage worldwide. The extremes could not be more staggering here. 91 per cent of households in Japan and 90 per cent in the US have AC, compared to 6 per cent and 5 per cent for South Africa and India respectively. The US and Canada produce nearly 25 million barrels of oil daily, while Guyana produces a little over 350,000 barrels.

May I also remind Ms Janki that the US only recently authorised drilling for oil in the Alaskan Tundra, and also gave a licence to Trinidad and Tobago to develop a major gas field in Venezuelan waters (Reuters, 24/1/2023).

Since Developed Nations are responsible for 79 per cent of the historical carbon emissions, Ms. Janki must make a case, based on ethics, as to why the same Developed Nations and their energy allies must be allowed to hold a monopoly of hydrocarbon development. Ms. Janki should be campaigning against the world’s biggest polluters, who also happen to be the richest. Anything short would leave her so-called activism against Developing Nations like Guyana wanting.

Gary Girdhari made some nasty comments about my career in academia, and I have a right of reply. Gary, in 2022, scholars and students from 359 universities in 91 countries read my work. Thousands of pages were read, and hundreds downloaded. According to Academia.edu I am in the top 1 per cent from their nearly four million subscribers. I can send proof to anyone who cares.

Sincerely, Dr Randolph Persaud costs). b) Petroleum marketing or transportation costs of petroleum beyond the delivery point. c) Amounts paid under Article 3.2 of the agreement, if any, and other amounts paid with regard to non-fulfillment of contractual obligations, subject to section 3.1 (g). d) Costs of arbitration, and the sole expert in respect of any dispute under the agreement. e) Fines and penalties imposed by courts of laws of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana. f) Payments made in accordance with Article 15.4 of the agreement (royalties and profit oil). g) Costs incurred as a result of willful misconduct or gross negligence of the contractor, or failure to insure where insurance is required pursuant to Article 20.2 (a) of the Agreement.

Evidently, nowhere in these provisions did it state that the cost for the construction of a critical facility such as an operating centre is not cost recoverable.

The Opposition MP further contended that the technologies in the facility will not be of any value to the Government. In light of this notion, it is crucial to note that the fact that the facility is cost recoverable means that the entire facility, the physical infrastructure and the estate upon which it is built, will be owned by the State. Hence, towards the end of Exxon’s operations in Guyana, the facility will have to be handed over to the State. And unlike other assets, such as equipment that will have depreciated in value by then, the physical infrastructure, or the entire real estate upon which the facility is being built, these types of assets typically do not depreciate, but appreciate in value.

Lastly, when the Vice President said in Opposition that they will not allow Exxon’s Headquarters (HQ) to be cost recoverable once in Government, one has to understand that a HQ facility versus an operating centre (OC) is very different in terms of usage. The definition based on the purposes of these facilities would determine the classification and accounting treatment. the Vice President was unapologetically correct to signal in Opposition that Exxon should not be building a HQ facility in Guyana from Guyana’s cost oil; bearing in mind that having a HQ in Guyana could potentially serve as a regional HQ for Exxon’s operations in the entire region. Of note, no multinational company such as ExxonMobil builds an HQ facility to serve one country. HQs are typically built in a strategic country /location to serve not just one country, but a region or sub-region. As it turned out, this is not the case.

Sincerely,

Joel Bhagwandin

09:30

10:30 Cartoons

11:00 Prem’s

14:00

15:30

20:00

22:00

23:00 The Office S2 E4

23:30