…despite having contributed far less carbon emissions than developed countries to the current spate of global warming, Africa and most developed economies are likely to be left worse off by a hotter world. Still, the righteous indignation that this should ordinarily call forth is, however, best served by developing countries seizing the climate change discussions by the scruff of the neck and leading discussions around how best to address this challenge as far as humanity’s current resources can take it…
Arguably, one of the most important agreements of the UN Climate Change Conference (COP29), which closed in Baku on 24 November, was the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG). Ignoring the fancy new acronym, the almost 200 countries gathered at the summit in the Azerbaijani capital agreed to increase climate financing for developing countries to $300 billion annually (from the earlier target of $100 billion, expiring next year) by 2035. However, successful financing for developing economies’ needs — to alleviate poverty and achieve sustainable development, and for loss and damage from rising global temperatures — makes sense only within the context of thoroughgoing revisions to countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
If the new NDCs are to have any meaning, the climate plans presented next year must address all sectors of the economy and all greenhouse gases, if the world is to have any hope of keeping the global temperature below the 1.5°C target. Yet, the difficulties encountered in meeting earlier financing targets and the often overambitious climate improvement plans are a cautionary tale. In Africa, as always, the need for caution around the climate conversation goes even deeper. Impoverished, and daily becoming relatively poorer, the continent has contributed far less to the circumstances that are helping bake the planet than any other location on earth.
|
|
…voices on the continent have questioned the equity of having to pay far more, relatively, to cool the earth than those who set it on fire in the first place. To hell, then, with the global targets for emissions, if all they do is hold down Africa’s prospects for development?
It has struggled, thus far, to marshal the resources it needs to grow at a pace consistent with the needs of its burgeoning population. Yet, were it somehow to find these means, the rate of growth the continent will aspire to will be cause for great concern. Doubtless, a key worry will be that its consumption of fossil fuels, its use of forest resources, and its production of greenhouse gases, would tilt the global conversation around global warming. There is an outside chance that this transition might rely on greener power than similar transitions elsewhere. But the cost of greening the continent’s infrastructure, without which it may not grow fast enough, is daunting.
Should the rest of the world, therefore, carve out a sandbox where green concerns would not matter for the continent? A place both safe and conducive to African economies’ continued rapid growth, while the rest of the world divvies up among itself the cost of the continent’s widening greenhouse gas footprint. Unlikely. Consequently, voices on the continent have questioned the equity of having to pay far more, relatively, to cool the earth than those who set it on fire in the first place. To hell, then, with the global targets for emissions, if all they do is hold down Africa’s prospects for development?
|
|
|
|---|
Rising sea levels are an existential threat to these places. And while a hotter globe would see much of Russia’s permafrost and Canada’s northern regions — currently inhospitable — increasingly support new agricultural initiatives, Africa is likelier to surrender huge swathes of territory, especially in its northern parts, to the desert. The outlook for food security on the continent, troubled at the best of times, would worsen.
Not quite. A warmer world would hurt the world. It would, however, impact geographies differently. Countries in the Northern Hemisphere would have to contend with older people’s vulnerability to heat stroke. They are rich enough, though, to afford the extra air conditioning that would be needed to address this particular challenge. Venice might see more water than its gondoliers would prefer, as would the Netherlands, whose dikes and sluice gates would probably groan under the heavier burden. But both places already have sophisticated technological solutions for dealing with rising water levels. Not so for small island states or Africa’s littoral countries. Rising sea levels are an existential threat to these places. And while a hotter globe would see much of Russia’s permafrost and Canada’s northern regions — currently inhospitable — increasingly support new agricultural initiatives, Africa is likelier to surrender huge swathes of territory, especially in its northern parts, to the desert. The outlook for food security on the continent, troubled at the best of times, would worsen.
In other words, despite having contributed far less carbon emissions than developed countries to the current spate of global warming, Africa and most developed economies are likely to be left worse off by a hotter world. Still, the righteous indignation that this should ordinarily call forth is, however, best served by developing countries seizing the climate change discussions by the scruff of the neck and leading discussions around how best to address this challenge as far as humanity’s current resources can take it, than by querulously turning up the heat in the oven that our previously green and blue planet is fast becoming.
Uddin Ifeanyi, journalist manqué and retired civil servant, can be reached @IfeanyiUddin.
Stay Ahead with Premium Times
Follow us on Google News and never miss breaking stories, investigations, and in-depth reporting.
Add as a preferred source on Google
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More News
