Dhaka Tribune (DT): Bangladesh has experienced three large-scale oil spills in the last year. One of them took place in the world's biggest mangrove forest Sundarbans. What do you think the country should do to reduce or manage such man-made disasters?
Kumi Naidoo (KM): If we are going to count the adverse effects of climate change, Bangladesh is already being considered as one of the most vulnerable countries. The country has been experiencing sea level rise and salinity that impacts the coastal community.
Bangladesh now needs to plan 100% access to renewable energy including for the transport sector. In reality, we need to think about the transport system which is not oil dependent.
I believe Bangladesh has talented people and it has the capacity to attract funding and better technology to get ready for future catastrophes. Now is the time to plan for the future. As of now, oil spills are a major concern. It is an indication of the threat that oil poses. Oil spills not only ruin not water bodies, but also pose threats to land and its culture. Although the impacts of oil spills are long-term, it can destroy natural life and biodiversity as well.
Bangladesh is having to cope with the impacts despite not being liable for carbon emission. I think the country's stance right now is good. Right now the country can demand financing from the global community for better technology to help the country fight future climatic problems.
At the same time, Bangladesh should avoid the use of fossil fuel and gradually reduce its global carbon footprint as it has been making the situation worse.
Regarding the damage caused by oil spills, ordinary people should not pay the price, rather, the companies that make profit on fossil fuel should pay the price.
In the case of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the United States compelled British Petroleum to spend money to clean up the mess in the sea. Bangladesh should also manage the costs of oil spill from the companies responsible.
DT: Because of an ever-increasing thirst for energy, Bangladesh is planning to install coal-fired power plants of thousand-megawatt capacities. Simultaneously, the country has announced to reduce carbon emission by 5% by 2030 voluntarily and by 15% if it gets finance and technology. What are your views on this initiative?
KN: To me it does not make any sense because Bangladesh is one of the beneficiaries of the Green Climate Fund. While the country has been facing large-scale sea level rise and climate induced displacement, how can it set a target to burn more fossil fuels like coal?
Bangladesh is undermining its legitimate claim to whatever is being decided under “loss and damage.” Furthermore, by investing in a “dirty” energy like coal, Bangladesh is putting itself at a serious economic disadvantage. Bangladesh is investing in young people and technology using its status as a developing country to get knowledge transferred. The successful countries in the future will be those who adopt green technology.
I believe Bangladesh has huge potential in renewable energy. It has solar, wave, wind and also bio-gases that should be used properly and this should be done within the next five to 10 years. The country should emphasise on clean energy rather than dirty energy like coal.
As far I know, Bangladesh is also facing dangers in terms of water security due to the sea level rise. Coal requires huge volume of clean water. So the country should retreat from investment in coal. It should rather use the available clean water for agriculture and other purposes that will ensure food security.
DT: In addition to coal, Bangladesh is also setting up a nuclear power plant. Greenpeace is against nuclear power. Your views?
KN: It's very unlikely that Bangladesh will be able to have a nuclear power plant. Very few are able to finance a nuclear power plant, so raising finance will be difficult for the country. Nuclear plants are not the right option to free people from energy poverty.
Fukushima is still suffering despite Japan being a very capable country. By setting up a nuclear power plant, Bangladesh will not only push its people into risk but also those in the neighbouring countries.
Nuclear energy is too expensive and dangerous. Moreover, it will take at least 10 years to becoming operative.
DT: Bangladesh still does not have an oil spill contingency plan. What role can such contingency plans play in tackling oil spills?
KN: It is absolutely irresponsible. Not a single oil project can run without a contingency plan. I will be surprised if Bangladeshi law does not make it obligatory. It will be a failure of the political leadership and the parliament in Bangladesh. It is an example that our political leaders are becoming slaves to the interest of fossil fuel companies.
DT: How can Greenpeace International play a role in this regard?
KN: Greenpeace does not have any presence in Bangladesh at present. I believe there are lots of strong environmental organisations in Bangladesh. If we get a call from them, I believe Greenpeace will response immediately.
