I THINK almost 99 per cent of the world’s people know that if you are going to wait at a hospital anywhere in the world for the patient to be discharged after surgery, it would never be less than two hours. There is the registration, then preparation, then post-surgery examination. Then there are many persons in front of you.
So, I took a book with me at Optique Eye Hospital last Saturday while waiting to take my wife home. A very quick digression. I went in 2020 to Bascom Palmer Eye Hospital to do a surgery. What I saw at Optique in terms of ambience, facilities and staff attitude exceed what I saw at Bascom Palmer. Guyana has come of age.
The book was Ivelaw Griffith’s “Oil and Climate Change in Guyana’s Wet Neighbourhood: Probing Promise and Potential Peril.” Another brief digression. I sat in the gallery among 25 persons and not one of them had a book or newspaper or any reading material in front of them. Every person sitting in the waiting room was on their phone. I looked at them and my mind zeroed in on the bleak future of reading.
Three months ago, I planned a review of Griffith’s work but in Guyana, even with a daily column, there is simply too much to take in. But Saturday gave me the chance to relook at Griffith’s text. I spent three hours reading Griffith and my interpretation is as follows.
The book is neither bad nor good. The book is both good and bad. It is good in the sense that it is a library of material on Guyana’s topography, geography, climate and related issues. The book is disappointing when it comes to the political umbrella Griffith used to describe the promise and peril of oil production.
I would not question the academic competence of Griffith. That competence is well known in Caribbean academia. But in his latest book, Dr Griffith’s research capacity can be questioned. I can only think of one answer for the faulty research. It certainly does not lie in Griffith’s scholarly ability. It resides in Griffith’s political perspectives.
The omissions and interpretations harm the academic wholesomeness of the text. First, Griffith does not mention that his sources on the danger of oil production are exclusively anti-government people, few of whom have any training in environmental science, climate science, petroleum engineering and international political economy.
Griffith fails to mention that these people have a long track record of opposing the PPP government based on their ideological orientation of colour and class. In dealing with the political environment, Griffith omits details of these very anti-oil critics who had supported five months of attempted rigging of the 2020 elections or remained silent. Griffith ought to know that you have to be careful in how you approach these people’s judgements.
Secondly, there are extensive quotes from these people, but he does not quote from a long letter. His sources wrote to President Ali in November 2020, demanding the end to oil production. In that letter there were racist overtones.
Thirdly, Griffith finds it convenient to quote people whose scholarship is absent. Take for example, Melinda Janki. He makes use of her pronouncement but failed to mention that the lady is a mere lawyer and not a scientist and her adumbrations are weird and extremist.
Ms Janki argued extensively that oil is bad for Guyana and at a Moray House seminar, titled her presentation, “Oil will make Guyana poorer.” Such persons Griffith relied on for his book.
Fourthly, Griffith refused to demarcate the lines separating anti-government civil society and independent civil society. For example, he highlights the concerns of “civil society” and cites a dozen court cases they have filed against the oil industry. But he chose not to mention that every one of those litigants is a rabid, irrational anti-PPP activist. In this context, Griffith’s book is misleading.
Fifthly, Griffith looks at the Natural Resource Fund and reproduced the condemnation of its critics, but he omitted that one of the world’s leading authorities on sovereign wealth funds, Andrew Bauer, noted that Guyana’s Natural Resource Fund is one of the finest he has examined so far.
Sixthly, Griffith very briefly mentioned William Mao of Harvard who speaks of the immeasurable and never-ending carbon credits of Guyana’s forest, but gave extensive coverage to Janet Bulkan denying such vast carbon credits.
Finally, Griffith did not touch on the fact that a majority of people are afraid to talk about. The EXXON investment is so large that the company may yet to recoup its investment. People are afraid to mention that lest they are accused of being pro-Exxon. But academics cannot be bothered with what people say. Griffith knows their job is to write.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.
