kayode.komolafe@thisdaylive.com
0805 500 1974
By Kayode Komolafe
As the United Nations Climate Conference (COP26) ended in Glasgow at the weekend the postulations of some experts that the environmental crisis would be a policy challenge were somewhat confirmed.
The 26th Conference of Parties (COP) hosted by the United Kingdom in partnership with Italy did not fully meet the expectations of the over 30,000 participants from nearly 200 countries. Yet the organisers projected it to be a “pivotal moment in the fight against climate change.” And some stakeholders left the conference proclaiming that some progress was made in the race against global warming.
For the rich nations which grudgingly made a few concessions because of their economic interests, the outcome of COP26 was said to be a relief of sorts; but for the poor vulnerable nations the weakened decisions might turn out to be a “death sentence “ as some other experts have also put it. Imagine the fate of some tiny low-lying islands already being washed away because of global warming!
In fact, the vastly contrasting views of the United Nations Secretary -General Antonio Guterres and a former United States Foreign Secretary, John Kerry, seemed to capture the divergence of opinions on the outcome of the conference. Guterres said : “We are still knocking on the door of climate catastrophe.” In contradistinction to that sense of emergency, Kerry posited: “We are, in fact, closer than we have ever been before to avoiding climate chaos and securing cleaner air, safe water and healthier planet.” Different folks, different strokes, you would probably say.
It was tough at the negotiation table before reaching the conclusion as the conference was extended by one day for that purpose. Meanwhile, the conference was to hold last year, but it was postponed because of the pandemic.
At the COP 21 in Paris, France, in December 2015 a global agreement was reached to pursue some broad goals – limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees; adaptation to the impacts of climate change, global cooperation to achieve the objectives and the provision of funds to implement the goals.
The meeting in Glasgow was to take steps towards the implementation of the Paris agreement with concrete plans. Not much was done in this regard. For instance, the $100 billion dollars that the rich nations pledged to give in support of energy transition in poor nations remains largely a promise.
The two biggest polluters of the habitat with carbon emissions – China and United States – gave the conference a pleasant surprise by announcing areas of cooperation despite their well-known differences. In a joint declaration, they announced what observers have aptly described as “climate détente,” while pledging accelerated efforts to reduce carbon emissions by developing national strategies. This was remarkable given the geo-political climate of tensions in which COP26 itself took place and the complexity of the issues at stake.
On the downside, China and India, in a curious intervention dampened the spirit of the conference by promoting the watering down of the resolution on coal as source of energy. They got the resolution of the meeting on “phasing out” coal amended to “phasing down” of the old pollutant. The British parliamentarian who presided over the conference, Alok Sharma, almost broke down as he announced this compromise to the consternation of the environmentalists protesting outside the conference room.
Such was the last-minute role of the two largest nations – China and India- in slowing down the movement towards net zero-emission. Meanwhile, Nigeria is projected to have a population of 450 by 2050. This will make this country the third largest population after China and India. By the way, population is an indisputable factor in environmentalism.
It was, therefore, important that Nigeria’s voice was also loud and clear in the labyrinth of negotiations at COP26. Although the Nigerian public still suffers from a relatively low level of consciousness about the issues of the environment, the consequences of environmental crisis are present in the daily lives of the people in different parts of the country – menacing desertification, deadly floods, destructive erosion, all-pervading pollution etc. This much was stated by the Nigerian government at the conference.
President Muhammadu Buhari made a solid case for a just energy transition while urging the rich nations to support the poor ones with funds for the transition in the spirit of Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The President put the matter this way: “For Nigeria, climate change is not about the perils of tomorrow but what is happening today. Nigeria is committed to net zero emission by 2060…”
“Parties to the Paris Agreement are expected to transit from fossil fuel to clean energy and reach a net zero ambition for greenhouse gases emission. Nigeria is actually more of a gas than an oil producing country.
“Consequently, I am requesting for financing of projects using transition fuels, such as gas.
“Nigeria has energy challenges for which, we believe, gas can be used to balance a renewable energy-based system, be it wind or sun.
“This would enable us launch the long-term renewable energy infrastructure procurement and investments needed to have a sustainable energy supply..’’
Talking about policy challenge, the President told the meeting a lot about Nigeria’s efforts to meet the net zero emission target and how to meet it. He spoke about a 2022 “climate-responsive budget” and “projects with climate change credentials.”
Significantly, the President spoke against the background of the Climate Change Bill passed by the National Assembly to provide a legal and inclusive framework for achieving low carbon emissions, green growth and and ultimately sustainable economic development.
Concretely, the President invited international partners of Nigeria to invest in gas as part of the efforts to achieve a just energy transition.
From the tone and tenor of Buhari’s statement, which is typical of the leaders of developing countries, it is clear that some arduous negotiations still lie ahead to achieve a significant reduction in carbon emission.
While China and India managed to tone down the COP26 outcome on coal, South Africa is already gaining concessions of over $8 billion on “phasing out” or “phasing down” coal. Compared to some other countries that seek concessions on the necessary energy transition, Nigeria sounded more constructive and responsive in the difficult situation facing the world.
Nigeria should learn to work in concert with other countries with similar magnitudes of ecological challenges in negotiating for beneficial deals to confront climate change. Come to think of it, the implicit logic of resolving the climate crisis is that of cooperation and not competition. The impacts of climate change do not respect geo-poltical or ideological boundaries.
It is legitimate that Nigeria’s position is anchored on the justice of the inescapable energy transition. In this matter, countries whose industrialisation processes were historically accelerated by the consumption of coal energy are not on the same moral high ground with poor countries with relatively minimal carbon emissions. That’s why President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa (who was represented at the conference) would not talk in the same vein as an official of the European Union who called for the end of the use coal as a source energy. The official said European economy was built on coal and that the same coal might also cause the death of the economy if urgent action was not taken to phase out coal.
In many ways, the contradiction between ecology and economics played out at the conference. This has been the trend since climate change consciousness began to gather pace during the 1995 COP1 held in Berlin, Germany. The fate of the planet may as well depend on how policymakers comprehend the dialectics of the promotion of economic development on the one hand and the reduction of global warming on the other hand. The trend is more problematic in poor countries such as Nigeria. After all, a combination of underdevelopment and environmental challenge is at the root of the crisis facing many poor countries.
As a takeaway from COP26, Nigeria should promote environment awareness at home while taking the leadership steps to forge a continental position for African countries to negotiate with rich countries on the matter of climate change. African countries direly need the funds to mitigate the impacts of climate change on the continent.
Unfortunately, it appears that this challenge is not clear to politicians in many countries who are not following the science of climate change properly. In some instances, some politicians are simply short-sighted and cynical in making policy choices.
What happened in Glasgow was reminiscent of a similar debate in the same Britain about 15 years ago.
A notable expert, Sir Nicholas Stern , submitted a report to the British government on climate change. It was entitled The Economics of Climate Change. The Stern report called for action on climate change, which today is the battle cry of climate activists.
The argument of Stern was simply this: enormous costs of climate change could be avoided in the future by paying cheaper costs of global warming at present. It is a logic of make sacrifices today for the sake of tomorrow. Tragically, policymakers in many countries would rather push the ecological sacrifices to the future generation for the sake of today’s economic gains. Stern was assailed by critics in Britain 15 years ago for his proposition. They did so regardless of whatever science might say to the contrary. According to the critics, the future costs of climate were uncertain. Their argument to slow down action on climate change was hinged on this uncertainty.
However, in a review of the Stern Report, Nobel Laureate in Economics, Kenneth Arrow, said it was difficult to get the world to make sacrifice at present for the sake of tomorrow. He examined the technical calculations in the report and concluded that “we are much better to act and reduce carbon dioxide emissions substantially than to suffer and risk the consequences of failing to meet this challenge.” That 2006 position was vindicated in Glasgow last week in the positions of countries which downplayed the sense of emergency about climate change. Arrow’s caution on the policy challenge of climate change is still relevant in 2021.
One of the lessons of COP26 is this: for policymakers, literacy in the economics of climate change is as important as listening to the scientists on the problem.
As Nigeria makes climate – responsive policies central to development planning, policymakers should never be inured to complacency about climate emergency.
