Even if the Bahamas government were to announce definitively that the industry could not be accommodated in these islands supporters of the proposals would no doubt continue to tell us what we would have missed in terms of economic benefits.
Some proponents of the scheme are trying to convince the government that it had better hurry up and sign on to this project before the window of opportunity closes. But at least one of the companies has indicated that if it were rejected it would go back to the drawing board and try again!
In most debates that stir up passions, some people can be counted on to try to discredit their opponents with personal slights and ridicule. There is nothing terribly wrong with this since their opponents can easily resort to the same tactics. But it tends to cloud the issue at hand.
It would be so much better to acknowledge that it is about individuals having different visions for their country.
Last week Tribune columnist Larry Smith did a piece in support of the LNG proposals and in it he refers to opposing views as “the often hysterical outcry swirling around” the proposals.
Fair enough. While those who are opposed to these projects may not feel they are being hysterical, that is Mr Smithﾴs perception. Another view is that what he is proposing is reckless gambling with the most precious natural resources of this archipelagic country as well as the security and the already dwindling sovereignty of the nation.
Passions were aroused to a high level back in 1967 when the US government was given permission by Britain to dump canisters of nerve gas in our waters. The British were then our imperial masters and so the Americans refused to talk directly with representatives of the Bahamas government. They would only talk with Bahamians as part of a British delegation.
Heading the Bahamian team to Washington was the late Sir Cecil Wallace Whitfield, who vigorously defended the interests of The Bahamas. The Americans were adamant about their plans, claiming that there was no risk to the Bahamian environment. But they could not answer Sir Cecilﾴs devastating question:
“If it is so safe, why donﾴt you dump it in the Hudson River?”
Mr Smith refers to “retired FNM Arthur Foulkes,” “resuscitated PLP George Smith” and “the entirely unreconstructed Loftus Roker.” It is not for me to speak for either of these two gentlemen but I have to say that the description “unreconstructed” could well apply to Larry Smith. An Oxford dictionary gives this definition of the adjective: “not reconciled or converted to the current political orthodoxy.”
I should only like to inform him that while I am indeed retired from some things, I am not retired from the FNM, neither from being a Bahamian who will speak out on any national issue I choose so long as I am able.
Mr Smith accurately notes that opposition to the LNG proposals comes from both sides of the political divide. It remains to be seen just how divided both parties are on this issue.
If these projects are approved there is no question that The Bahamas will be taking a far greater risk than the people of Florida who stand to benefit most from them. But while the administration of Florida Governor Jeb Bush has approved the projects there are still people in Florida who are vehemently opposed.
In the international edition of The Miami Herald published with The Tribune on May 2, 2004, Carl Hiaasen describes the projects as “goofball schemes” and notes that the chairman of one of the interested companies is Richard Darman, “a heavy Republican playmaker who was budget director when the first George Bush was president.”
“Given the current George Bushﾴs chummy relationship with the gas and oil industry, it is no surprise that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission breezily approved both Florida pipelines.”
Mr Hiaasen recounts how last March Mr Bush delayed a cabinet vote on the pipelines because of environmental concerns. The governor heard a presentation by Raymond McAllister, professor emeritus of ocean engineering at Florida Atlantic University, who stated that the pipelines could not be built without permanently damaging the reefs and that leaks could create a potentially lethal hazard for boaters and beach goers.
“Evidently,” says Mr Hiaasen, “the governorﾴs worries evaporated after what pipeline officials characterised as a period of ﾑeducation.ﾴ Whatever malarkey they told Bush in private, he apparently bought it.” Some serious ﾑeducationﾴ is going on in The Bahamas as well.
Mr Hiaasen refers to the huge amount of sediment that would be stirred up by underwater drilling causing damage to the reefs. “Dead coral tends to stay dead, and the sea life that depends on it never returns.”
Larry Smith parrots the companiesﾴ line that safety concerns are misplaced. “LNG is neither explosive nor inflammable,” he says.
A reader some time ago sent an e-mail supporting the LNG project. When he read Tractebelﾴs special supplement circulated with newspapers in April he sent another e-mail asking me to ignore the first one.
He says he was persuaded that unless Bahamians reject the projects we would be dealing with companies that could not be trusted (his language was more colourful) and adds:
“The good news was to learn that since it contains no oxygen LNG cannot explode! Foolish me, now I know I can smoke while pouring gasoline because it too contains no oxygen!”
Mr Hiaasen agrees: “Not only will the construction scar the reefs and disperse marine life, the pipes will be used to carry millions of cubic feet of natural gas which ignites rather spectacularly when exposed to oxygen and a spark.”
He concludes:
“Florida is home to the last of the continentﾴs living reefs, a fact we boastfully trumpet to lure tourists. Itﾴs startling that Gov Bush and the cabinet would so casually put this already-imperiled treasure at risk, for so little gain to the public.
“Itﾴs even more disturbing that, with the future of our shores and ocean waters at stake, Bush would dismiss the concerns of scientists and trust the word of energy hustlers. They might call it an ﾑeducation,ﾴ but it smells like a sellout.”
Perhaps we should simply discount Mr Hiaasenﾴs views. After all, he may just be a retired something or other, or he may be resuscitated, or even unreconstructed.
* * *
THE DIFFERENCE
It is not easy for some people to comprehend but there is a difference between the government and the party in power for the time being. Persons who fail to understand the difference should not, as FNM leader Tommy Turnquest says, be in charge of the peopleﾴs broadcast and television facilities.
Furthermore, ministers of government who do not understand the difference can propose naming government-guaranteed housing projects after party slogans, like Help and Hope. Other parties in power in the future would either undo this or follow the precedent by naming government projects and institutions after their own slogans and symbols. Do we really want to go down that road?
Arthur Foulkes
