IT is the beginning of a new year, when many of us believe that a renewal of some sort is possible with a fresh set of 365 days. As much as I try to avoid worrying thoughts, the New Year is also a reminder that we are one year closer to disaster.

I live in Georgetown, Guyana’s capital city, which could be under water by 2030 if drastic measures aren’t taken to prevent a worsening climate crisis, according to climate experts. Those predictions have been contested, stating that 2030 is too soon; yet, many agree that unless the climate crisis is mitigated, low-lying, small developing states like Guyana are at risk.

And unless those smaller, poorer, developing countries get the funds to rebuild from the disasters that battered them and strengthen their defences against the effects of the climate crisis (like a massive flood or rising sea levels, for illustrative purposes), their very existence is threatened.

Spoiler alert, for years, those funds have been promised, and they have not materialised. Now, there is a promise of a new fund- for loss and damage- but questions still linger about how that may be activated and whether the countries that need it the most will benefit.

Those are daunting questions given the track record of rich, developed countries. But I’m not entirely hopeless (just mostly).

A colleague reminded me a few days ago that Guyana is an example of a country that’s doing impressive things to help save the planet. Guyana, for years, has dutifully protected its forests- which trap harmful gases that speed up the climate crisis and which are home to numerous plant and animal species.

Those forests, importantly, are also important to the country’s indigenous people. And so protecting those forests and, more recently, being paid to continue protecting those forests are a big deal. Later this year, at COP28 in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Guyana hopes it can inspire many more countries and people with its ambitious plans.

Guyana also has a point to prove. It wants to show the world that it can produce oil and gas and still demonstrate environmental stewardship because its forests offset whatever harmful gases are produced offshore. It wants to show the world how a poor, developing nation can leverage oil wealth to fuel the development of other industries, with a greater life expectancy than the oil sector, and by extension, fuel the nation’s development overall.

Not everyone agrees with that. And their positions are worth considering, especially with the oil industry’s contributions to worsening the global climate crisis.

In 2021, two Guyanese lawyers, Melinda Janki and Ronald Burch-Smith sued the government for allowing ExxonMobil to produce oil offshore Guyana. Exxon later joined the government as a co-defendant in the case.

The lawyers argue that oil production is incompatible with human health and a sustainable environment and that these actions are contrary to provisions in Guyana’s constitution. In fact, it has been noted that the constitution contains provisions that explicitly protect the rights of citizens—present and future—to a healthy environment.

Based on reports, if the lawyers are successful, the case could set an example for climate activists in other countries.

The actions, perhaps, also represent the kind of action needed on a global scale to prevent the climate crisis from worsening.

One hopes that leaders worldwide, not just in Guyana, or the Caribbean, would recognise the immense threat posed if the climate crisis continues unabated. One hopes that meaningful action will be taken to prevent this all from happening and the most vulnerable nations are not left with promises. And one hopes that the 2030- or 2050, or whenever- threat of an underwater Georgetown does not materialise.

If you would like to discuss this column or any of my previous writings, please feel free to contact me via email: vish14ragobeer@gmail.com