by Sir Arthur Foulkes
As this hurricane season produces more storms and more powerful ones, the debate on whether global warming is a contributing factor has also intensified.
There have been 22 named storms so far with 12 developing to full hurricane force, and the season still has five weeks to go.
Hurricane Wilma, having devastated Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula, surged across Cuba, Florida and the northern Bahamas as Alpha was just getting started in the south. (Incidentally, the Cubans can teach others a lesson about preparedness as they have evacuated 300,000 of their citizens away from exposed areas).
Wilma at one point was the strongest hurricane ever recorded with winds up to 175 miles per hour and capable of gusts up to 185. It is chilling to imagine the damage a ferocious storm like that could do to life, property and the natural environment in a direct hit on the Bahamas.
Some say the number and the intensity of tropical storms this year have little to do with global warming and are more likely to be cyclical. They point to previous prolific hurricane seasons as well as powerful storms of the past, the strongest until now being in 1935.
But everybody agrees that hurricanes thrive on warm water, the warmer the water the more hurricanes, and the more powerful they are likely to be. It is hardly debatable any more that planet Earth is getting warmer since there is overwhelming evidence including the melting of the polar icecaps.
The BBC Online reports that a study published in the journal Science found that while the incidence of hurricanes and tropical storms has remained roughly constant over the last 30 years, there has been a rise in the number of intense hurricanes.
Dr. Peter Webster, who headed the research says, “What I think we can say is that the increase in intensity is probably accounted for by the increase in sea-surface temperature and I think probably the sea-surface temperature is a manifestation of global warming.”
The US-based Union of Concerned Scientists says that the rising sea levels resulting from the polar meltdown means higher storm surges, even from relatively minor storms. These surges will cause more coastal flooding, erosion and damage to coastal property.
All of this means that the planet is in trouble and that low-lying coastal areas and low-lying archipelagic countries like the Bahamas will suffer soonest and most.
It is up to the developed and rapidly-developing nations of the world to face the reality of global warming and stop pretending it is not happening, before it is too late. Some scientists feel that we may have already passed the tipping point.
The Bahamas should join with others and take every opportunity to speak out in appropriate international forums against environmental abuse. Beyond that we should prepare for the worst and do all we can to protect ourselves. We should certainly not be contributing to the problem with our own abuse of the environment by the extravagant use of fossil fuel and direct attacks on our natural heritage.
But it seems Prime Minister Perry Christie – like the hard-headed American President George W. Bush – has yet to get the message. Mr. Christie told The Bahama Journal less than two weeks ago that he is still actively considering proposals for LNG regasification plants in the Bahamas and the piping of LNG to Florida.
According to The Journal, Mr. Christie said he is hoping to address several concerns about the projects with Florida Governor Jeb Bush, whose state has a keen interest in them. He also expects to hear from US Ambassador John Rood about his concerns.
What this amounts to is that Mr. Christie is under intense pressure from his own Minister of Trade and Industry Leslie Miller, the powerful gas and oil industry and the government of Florida.
The Americans can be counted on to give Mr. Christie every reason why he should do this deal and to offer every comfort and assurance. It is in Florida’s interest to have this facility safely constructed as far away as possible from its coast. Obviously Florida does not mind having to dig up millions of tons of silt from the ocean floor to lay the pipes.
This is the same Florida which refuses to allow oil exploration near its shores for fear of possible damage to its multibillion dollar tourism industry!
But what about the Bahamas? Who are Mr. Christie and his colleagues thinking for? They should have the courage displayed by the late Sir Cecil Wallace Whitfield in 1967 when he told our American friends what they should do with the nerve gas they wanted to dump in the Bahamas.
We were not independent then so the Americans, with British consent, did dump the nerve gas in the Bahamas and up to this day we have no idea what impact that has had on our environment and our health over the years.
Mr. Christie should not delude himself into thinking that opposition to the LNG projects comes only from a small environmental lobby. That lobby is best qualified to articulate the case against these projects but Mr. Christie should know that many thousands of Bahamians are even more environmentally conscious than they were in 1967.
They are acutely aware of the value of the coral reefs which we hold in trust for future generations of Bahamians and indeed, the rest of humanity. They know what it would mean to our rich marine resources – conch, lobster and grouper – if that delicate ecological system were to collapse and die.
The Prime Minister and his colleagues should try to summon up enough courage to put the Bahamian people, our national safety and our natural heritage first, and say no to Leslie Miller, Jeb Bush and the gas and oil conglomerates.
* * *
LORDS & COMMONERS
In this column last week I discussed some differences between the parliamentary system as it is practised in Britain and in the Bahamas. I mentioned briefly the evolution of the British system, now known as Westminster after the palace where both houses sit.
In the penultimate paragraph I wrote: “The Westminster system evolved over many years and at one time the House of Lords (the Upper House) was more powerful than the House of Commoners (the Lower House).”
My editors changed Commoners to Commons but the use of Commoners was intentional since that was the way the Lower House was styled centuries ago. Commons is short for Commoners.
The point is that royalty and the nobility once exercised more political power than the ordinary people of Britain, the commoners. It took many years of conflict to shift political power from the Lords to what it now known as the House of Commons.
The term commoners is still very much in use in Britain today particularly when there is news that someone of royal blood is likely to marry someone whose blood is not so blue.
Many years ago I did some research for an article for the Bahamas Handbook to find out why the colour of the House of Commons (and our House of Assembly) is green and the colour of the Lords (and our Senate) is red. We got this tradition from Westminster and so even the House Speaker’s ink is green while the Senate President’s is red.
The red was easy. It represented royalty and nobility and so on. The green was not so easy as there were several conflicting theories.
I settled on the one which claimed that the carpet and upholstery of the Lower House was green because back then green dye was cheaper, hence suitable for the commoners!
Sir Arthur,
I whole-heartedly concur in your call for increased vigilance in respect of our environment.
If I may supplement your articulation of the problems we face, it would be only to say that such vigilance should start at home because like cleanliness & godliness, environmental-awareness starts at home.
Thank you,
SSS
Posted by: SS Seymour | October 30, 2005 at 07:05 PM