THERE
is no magic to a country like Trinidad and Tobago
attaining developed country status, depending on the
Government's definition of "developed".
If it means consumerism, our people having access
to the latest designer clothing, electronic gizmos
and two-cars-per-garage, we are almost there. If it
means importing most of our food requirements, hence
forsaking agriculture, then we are already there.
If
it means the middle-to-upper-crust of the society
enjoying six-digit-annual salaries even as 70 per
cent of the labour force struggle to survive on crumbs,
we have been stuck in that mode for decades. If it
means a capital city with an impressive skyline of
multi-storey structures, we'll soon get there. After
all, with oil and gas prices at their highest levels
ever, and no sign of any decline, we can afford to
"play ourselves", to be the "sheikhs
of the Caribbean", as the late George Weekes
described us during the first oil boom.
These
goals, however, are myopic by any measure, and more
so if one considers the plight of developed countries
that focused on attaining these "heights",
only to be struggling now to maintain the lifestyles
they have spawned. The USA, of course, which is portrayed
as the best among developed countries, and after which
most developing countries pattern growth paths, is
finding itself in dire straits. Recently, for example,
Hurricane Katrina exposed the poverty-stricken-underbelly
of this "most prosperous" of nations, and
it was a shock to those who believed that everyone
there lived in relative luxury.
It
is also a country steeped in debt, living on borrowed
money, beset by obesity, devoid of proper and accessible
health care for its poor. Is this our role model?
In
T&T, we are putting close to 30,000 new (or foreign-used)
vehicles on our roads every year: in contrast, we
have built nowhere close to 30 miles of new roads
in the last 30 years! There are no plans for obsolescence,
so 30-year-old vehicles "puff" away alongside
shiny new limousines.
We
leap forward into heavy industries, putting down more
emission-spewing plants than any developed country
would allow on their soil, without thinking what will
happen to these when (not if) the gas and oil run
out. We have literally murdered agriculture, not to
add the culture of growing our own food.
We
encourage our people to waste energy much the way
Americans do-or did, until the recent oil-shock. Worst
of all, we absolutely refuse to look at alternative
energy, at alternative ways of developing the country
so that we not only move forward, but we do so in
a sustainable manner.
Take
the new performing arts centre or whatever they call
it, that is due to replace the existing facilities
at the Savannah. The cash-laden Government proudly
announced that a $700 million complex will replace
them. Dollars always impress: $700 million for this,
$800 million for a new stadium, however many billions
to realign the capital's skyline, and so on.
When
you have such money, why bother with some "ole
fogeys" who are making what seem to be ludicrous
suggestions for our future? They'll be long dead by
the time these projects come on stream anyway. Colin
Laird's design for the new Savannah complex was the
complete solar-panel-roof of the new Grand Stand that
would provide power, almost for eternity, for the
entire facility. That makes sense for anyone who cares
to peer into the future, who can envision what a developed
country will look like 50 years hence. But why worry?
We have oil and oil money to burn.
Sweden
recently announced that it aims to be the first "green
country" in the world. It is using its current
wealth to diversify its energy sources away from fossil
fuels to renewable energy sources. Its neighbour,
Denmark, currently draws 20 per cent of its energy
(electricity) from wind turbines; by 2025, it hopes
to take this level up to 50 per cent.
Japan,
which has an installed capacity of 1200MW in solar
power, uses half the solar modules made worldwide,
for residential applications. Norway, a major oil
producer, gets 45 per cent of its electricity from
wind turbines. Germany is second only to Japan in
usage of solar energy, while India, the giant that's
awakening, has established that it has a solar potential
of 600GW of power a day.
Given
that we have another 20-30 years of fossil fuels,
does it not make sense to plan for a future in which
we are less dependent on oil and gas? Can the politicians,
especially those in government, not see that we need
to shape a "green" future, a country in
which we balance ecology and development?
But
for them, the burning question is not what we attain
50 years hence, but what will they say on elections
platforms in 2007. While the Government preaches "Vision
2020", in practice it remains mired in the five-year
mould that is detrimental to the country.
Raffique
Shah is
a columnist in the Trinidad Express.
Petroleumworld not necessarily share these views.
