WE commend the world leaders that met recently in Paris, France, and took concerted far-reaching decisions to combat the adverse effects of climate change.
That over 195 heads of states and governments honoured the event and agreed to commit enormous resources to ensure a more secure earth is reassuring enough.
It is good that President Muhammadu Buhari used the occasion to draw global attention on the need to revive the Lake Chad Basin, a huge lake that once supported the livelihood of many people across four countries, Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and Nigeria, but is now one tenth of its original size. There is a causal relationship between the drying up of much of the lake and the economic disaster it wrought that had also contributed to fuel the violent extremism in the region. Buhari’s proposal to refill the lake and restore the eco-system which would require $14 billion is well made.
He also pointed out that the threats of soil erosion in the South of the country and the dangers of sea-level rise in Lagos and the threats to the coastlines in the Niger Delta are problems that should be addressed.
No doubt, the dangers of climate change are here with us. Buhari’s commitment to cut Nigeria’s emissions by 20 per cent in the first phase by ending gas flaring and the utilization of solar energy is welcome. It is also expected that the second phase would lead Nigeria to cutting emissions by 45 per cent with the help of the international climate finance.
Interestingly, the UN Framework on climate change is fashioned to address deforestation, poverty, food security and various others. The Paris conference has largely proved more successful than the one in Copenhagen, five years ago.
It is good that the representatives of all the countries agreed on almost all the issues that generated a lot of the wrangling that characterised Copenhagen. Also, the resolution on what the developed countries would do to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, although the exact level is yet to be determined, is fair.
Besides, it contained an important clause, which is a promise by developed countries to assist the less developed countries, to meet their commitment. Five years ago, the amount of the aid caused so much bickering but today it is assumed that the aid would not be less than $100 billion a year from the year 2020.
In spite of the many areas of agreement, the fear still subsists that oil producing nations may wish to derail some of the decisions but that did not happen when the ministers end- ed their meeting at weekend. Saudi Arabia was reported to have made attempt to prevent any reference to the need to hold global warming at 1.5 instead of 2 degrees Centigrade on which there is a worldwide consensus.
Although fossil fuel seems to have been on trial in Paris, we do not think oil producers have another planet to live in if the earth is endangered. In any case, given the huge increases in the use of clean energy—hydro, wind and solar— emission created by fossil fuel will likely continue to diminish to a point where it would no longer be considered a threat to the world.
To ensure that the Paris conference achieves its objectives, the world must put pressure on the rightists in the United States, many of whom are climate change deniers. In spite of overwhelming scientific evidence, they have refused to believe that climate change is the result of human activity.
These include powerful members of the US Congress, who can possibly block President Obama’s initiatives and commitments in Paris. The United States support for the climate change agreements is crucial to its implementation and all people of goodwill should persuade the Republican doubters to change their mindsets for the survival of the planet.
0 comments :
Post a Comment