Over 193 United Nations member states attended the Conference of Parties conference on Climate Change tagged COP 17 in Durban, South Africa. The end-game was simple, how to agree on a document that supersedes the Kyoto protocol which expires in 2012. How did we get to this point? The COP in 1997 agreed on a document called the Kyoto Protocol, which sets out guidelines in which nations make strong but voluntary commitments to reducing their Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. Part of the guidelines stipulate that big carbon emitters like the U.S, Australia, Canada and the Euro zone make stricter commitments to cutting down their own green house gas emissions. While some countries termed as “Developing” mostly in the BRIC such as China and India, were given a little more leeway in their own emission reduction obligations.
Here lies the crux of the matter as the U.S immediately refused to ratify the agreement. Claiming it would not be a part of any agreement that does not hold China responsible for its own GHG emissions. It is important to note that though at the time the U.S led as the world’s largest emitter, China, then termed as “Developing” was not far behind and currently leads as the worlds largest emitter (though the U.S still tops it on per capita emissions).
Thus then began the merry dance of modern day climate change negotiations. Since the Protocol was a voluntary agreement, nations are not bound to compliance. That in itself has also been a sticking point in climate negotiations, as some argue the need to have a legally binding agreement that forces countries to cut down their GHG emissions.
So while the egg-heads debate “dots” and “I”s at the COP, the present realities of climate change are becoming more evident for all to see. Vulnerable continents like Africa though low emitters by global standards bear the punishing brunt of its effects. The continents coastline might be unrecognizable in the next 50 years from present day due to rapidly increasing sea level rise from melting glaciers in the polar caps. Already Island countries around the world like Tuvalu have started drawing up evacuation measures. Nigerian cities along the coastline will be well advised to have an exit strategy against such a terrible scenario.
In Nigeria the effects of climate change have already begun to hit closer to home. As a veritable source of life and livelihood; the Lake Chad, has already shrunk to 35% of its original size since 1975 alone. Local farmers already complain that it is becoming increasingly difficult to ascertain when to begin their planting season as the weather has become increasingly unpredictable; this in itself an effect of climate change.
So what is Nigeria doing about it? Nigeria is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol and other Agreements, and is thus obligated to meet its responsibility in the stated Agreements. It has made some progress in meeting it obligations on the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and land Degradation), F.N.A (Financial Needs Assessment) and the National Adaptation Strategy Plan of Action (NASPA), but more can still be done. As efforts are being made to mitigate the effects of climate change, priority assistance should also be given to the most vulnerable in assisting to adapt to its immediate effects.
Nigeria’s House of Assembly has passed a bill on the creation of a National Climate Change Commission. The Commission is to be responsible for housing and providing a framework through which all climate change related issues are addressed in Nigeria.
The Honourable Minister of Environment Mailafia Hadiza was also bold in making this declaration to a global audience in Durban as part of Nigeria’s contribution to addressing climate change. But this Bill has been with the President for over a year now, awaiting his ascent and is still yet to be signed into law. Lets hope the President remains committed to implementing his own Transformation Agenda and ensuring sustainable development by signing the Bill.As we are well aware, the coastal areas which include many parts of the South-South region that houses’ Nigeria’s economic petroleum backbone will be well at risk of inundation.
Does the current deal made at Durban save the planet? Maybe not, but it is an important step in showing governments that the current diplomatic processes without a “Legal Force” are inadequate in curbing sustained CO2 rise in the future. It is also an opportunity for nations such as Nigeria to show leadership in taking control of its own destiny.
Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Building a sustainable future
The climate change conference in Cancun has come and gone with a lot more positives than in Copenhagen the previous year. Gains have been made in the areas of REDD+, funding, and on mending the diplomatic bridges between countries that had become shaky. All this still does not elude the fact that there are still challenges towards the world achieving global carbon emission reductions. The legislative framework in a lot of countries is still too weak or in some others, non-existent. This also includes the giant polluters like the U.S and China.
Political will is sorely lacking, as politicians juggle between making populist and tough decisions, government indecision have given rise to an increase in skepticism about the veracity of climate change science itself. Some pointing to recent global heavy snowfall as signs that the earth is not warming as predicted by scientists, putting to question the fact that 2010 was the hottest year on record.
It is important to note that if current levels of carbon in the atmosphere are maintained or increased the average global temperatures will rise; what this phenomenon does is create a delicate set of climatic imbalances which cause an increase in extreme weather events. These may range and vary from dramatic heat spells and powerful snowstorms to extreme flooding.
It brings to the fore that in such circumstances the economies in which the governments had shortsightedly claimed to protect would be worse off. The world stands to gain a lot more than it has to lose in the case of acting on climate change. If climate change was a farce these are the outcomes we would be left with;
• Green jobs
• Energy independence
• Liveable cities
• Sustainability
• Clean water and air
• Preserved rain forests, Eco-habitats
• Healthy children etc
Nigeria is not left out of this global conundrum as its economy is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, which are a finite resource. It stands the most to gain if it diversifies into alternative and sustainable sources of energy.
Gain 1); Nigeria would be energy independent – Should the country pursue the green route vigorously, it can take advantage of the over 20,000MW generating capacity from hydro resources alone (Renewable Energy Master Plan - Nigeria). This has the capacity to create 500,000 thousand jobs; according to a Global Climate Network and ICEED research conducted in 2009, providing the country with adequate stable electricity that can stimulate economic growth.
With the growth of green jobs; investment in clean energy sources will directly and in-directly open up a whole new employment spectrum. Jobs requiring technical expertise in hydro plants and solar pv development sectors would be in demand, not to mention the run-off effect it would have for goods and services in its supply chain.
Gain 2) Nigeria has lost 80% of its forest cover in the last 30 years, and currently has about 2.6% of forest reserves remaining. Nigeria’s rapidly diminishing forest reserves and delicate eco-habitat can be preserved through programmes such as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), which is a mechanism to create an incentive for developing countries to protect, better manage, and wisely use their forest resources.
Gain 3) we would have cleaner and liveable cities. With a national policy supporting the reduction of GHG emissions, corporations and businesses would have no other alternative than to go greener. In which the environment and the population would be better off. As there would lower pollution and cleaner air which all lead up to a healthier society.
Gain 4) Sustainable – Nigeria would be off it’s time clock of fossil fuel expiration – given the 20-30 years left for the nation’s oils reserves to run out.
It is not too late to act on climate change, but it may soon be. Governments have shown with current austerity measures that future preservation can out-weigh instant economic gratification. If the momentum and pressure is built on political office holders to view the effects of climate change in this light, only then would tough stances be made on issues concerning emissions reduction and promoting greener sustainable livelihoods.
By Michael-Donovan Ezeilo
Political will is sorely lacking, as politicians juggle between making populist and tough decisions, government indecision have given rise to an increase in skepticism about the veracity of climate change science itself. Some pointing to recent global heavy snowfall as signs that the earth is not warming as predicted by scientists, putting to question the fact that 2010 was the hottest year on record.
It is important to note that if current levels of carbon in the atmosphere are maintained or increased the average global temperatures will rise; what this phenomenon does is create a delicate set of climatic imbalances which cause an increase in extreme weather events. These may range and vary from dramatic heat spells and powerful snowstorms to extreme flooding.
It brings to the fore that in such circumstances the economies in which the governments had shortsightedly claimed to protect would be worse off. The world stands to gain a lot more than it has to lose in the case of acting on climate change. If climate change was a farce these are the outcomes we would be left with;
• Green jobs
• Energy independence
• Liveable cities
• Sustainability
• Clean water and air
• Preserved rain forests, Eco-habitats
• Healthy children etc
Nigeria is not left out of this global conundrum as its economy is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, which are a finite resource. It stands the most to gain if it diversifies into alternative and sustainable sources of energy.
Gain 1); Nigeria would be energy independent – Should the country pursue the green route vigorously, it can take advantage of the over 20,000MW generating capacity from hydro resources alone (Renewable Energy Master Plan - Nigeria). This has the capacity to create 500,000 thousand jobs; according to a Global Climate Network and ICEED research conducted in 2009, providing the country with adequate stable electricity that can stimulate economic growth.
With the growth of green jobs; investment in clean energy sources will directly and in-directly open up a whole new employment spectrum. Jobs requiring technical expertise in hydro plants and solar pv development sectors would be in demand, not to mention the run-off effect it would have for goods and services in its supply chain.
Gain 2) Nigeria has lost 80% of its forest cover in the last 30 years, and currently has about 2.6% of forest reserves remaining. Nigeria’s rapidly diminishing forest reserves and delicate eco-habitat can be preserved through programmes such as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), which is a mechanism to create an incentive for developing countries to protect, better manage, and wisely use their forest resources.
Gain 3) we would have cleaner and liveable cities. With a national policy supporting the reduction of GHG emissions, corporations and businesses would have no other alternative than to go greener. In which the environment and the population would be better off. As there would lower pollution and cleaner air which all lead up to a healthier society.
Gain 4) Sustainable – Nigeria would be off it’s time clock of fossil fuel expiration – given the 20-30 years left for the nation’s oils reserves to run out.
It is not too late to act on climate change, but it may soon be. Governments have shown with current austerity measures that future preservation can out-weigh instant economic gratification. If the momentum and pressure is built on political office holders to view the effects of climate change in this light, only then would tough stances be made on issues concerning emissions reduction and promoting greener sustainable livelihoods.
By Michael-Donovan Ezeilo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)