AS the world prepares for the crucial United Nations Climate Change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, holding from December 7-18, 2009, there are serious concerns about what the outcome of the summit would be. Here is an endangered world exposed to the traumatic impacts of climate change.
Going by the hard scientific evidence alerting about the worsening climatic situation on all continents, the only option left to mankind is to take appropriate actions at local and international levels to curb climate change and reduce its impacts. Without such a line of action, the world stands endangered and no one knows what would happen next.
Incidentally, the ravages of climate change don't respect national boundaries or skin colour. The disasters don't draw boundary lines between the rich and poor countries. Whether it is Hurricane Katrina in the United States Gulf Coast or droughts in Africa or monsoon floods in Southeast Asia, it is humans of all colours and races and nationalities that suffer. Everyone is a victim and every nation pays the price. To a large extent, it is the developed countries that quite often pay the financial price of these disasters through financial assistance.
Against this background, the United Nations (UN) is leaving no stone unturned as the momentum gathers for the world to deliberate on these issues. For instance, the UN is championing some actions to ensure that everyone is involved and committed to any action the world decides to take. To this end, the UN has initiated an on-line signature campaign to draw the attention of peoples, communities and nations to the dangers ahead. It is calling for a million signatures to prepare what it calls a climate petition to be presented at the summit.
Besides, it is launching the first-ever Global Climate Week as part of the "Seal the Deal Campaign". The aim is "to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". The only way to achieve this is to set enforceable limits of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards to be observed by individual countries. Also, nations should adopt green mechanisms in industrial production that are environmentally friendly. A combination of these actions is expected to drastically reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses spilled into the atmosphere. The ultimate aim is to ensure a carbon-free industrial production economy.
At present, all the talks and discussion on this matter seem to focus on the major industrial economies of the world made up of the G8 countries. The G8 comprises of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States of America. However, France and the UK are calling for the expansion of the group to include five developing countries including Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. These countries have participated in the group's previous meetings in what is now referred to as G8+5.
I believe that these countries should spearhead any measures designed to limit greenhouse gas emission by virtue of their highly industrialised economies that contribute significant amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. For instance, the per capita greenhouse emission of Canada according to the World Resources Institute (WRI) in 2005 was 22.6 and USA 23.5.
This sharply contrasts with countries like Nigeria and Kenya with 2.1 and 0.3 respectively. Japan had 10.5 while the UK had 10.6. Whereas, these countries possess the technological know-how and capacity to develop new improved green technologies to sustain their industrial economies, the developing countries on the other hand lack both the capacity and technology to even adapt what is already in place. This is where the problem lies.
Thus, considering the unimpressive economic situation of most developing countries, it is understandable why these countries appear lukewarm to the call for the adoption of green technology as a way forward in the effort to curb climate change. This also explains why the West is championing the cause of green technology while the poor countries are uninterested about it.
I believe that the transition from non-green technology to a green technology should follow the same pattern that the industrial revolution followed. As a matter of fact, there was no consensus by the whole world to transit from the pre-industrial manual and draft-animal based economy towards machine-based manufacturing.
What started in Britain in late 18th and early 19th centuries saw major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining and transportation. These changes profoundly affected the socio-economic and cultural conditions in the UK. It was from Britain that the changes spread throughout Europe, North America and the entire world. The entire economic and industrial developments that abound all over the world started in one country - Great Britain.
It is obvious from the foregoing that the West started with non-green industrial technology with which they developed their economies and by extension caused climate change, which is now affecting the whole world.
For example, the West at the beginning of the industrial revolution embraced coal technology as a major source of industrial power. From coal, they moved on to the exploitation of fossil fuels, particularly, crude oil. From the processing of crude oil to its use in internal combustion engines, it is pollution all through. Besides, the urbanised culture that followed the industrial revolution further engendered major land use changes that saw the destruction of large swaths of forests that hitherto served as carbon sink. The land use changes were carried out to create space for cities, highways, roads, canals, etc. All these were the principal movers of industrial development in the developed world.
From this angle, many argue that the developing countries can't in all honesty subscribe to the new green technology culture wholesale without loosing out on development. This is assuming that they have the appropriate technology to make the change possible but the truth is that they don't have it. It is difficult to imagine how massive economic development would have been possible in the West without taking those destructive actions that impacted on the global environment.
Based on the same premise, it is not known how a country like Nigeria would develop without following to some extent the same pathway followed by Britain at the beginning of industrial revolution. The same applies to all developing poor countries in Africa, Asia, and South America. For me this is the dilemma faced by these countries and the world, which the summit should address.
I am not saying that clean development is not possible. In fact, it is very possible and sometimes cheaper in the long run. What I'm saying is that the developing countries are caught up in an excruciating underdevelopment quagmire that many of them don't even know how to handle. For me, it is more economical to adopt green technologies because of its many advantages.
For instance, green technology is sustainable, it creates re-useable products, it reduces waste and pollution, and it is innovative and viable. I have often illustrated the adoption of green technology with the transition from charcoal/firewood to cooking gas or to electric heater in many Nigerian communities.
There is no doubt that a woman using the three different technologies to prepare the same food will have varied experiences to get the food ready on the dining table. Of course, the woman using gas or electric cooker will prepare the food faster and at the same time generate little or no pollution than the woman using firewood/charcoal. There is no doubt that the adoption of green technology will serve nations better than otherwise.
Based on the foregoing, I believe that the developing countries will be glad to transit form the use of polluting industrial technology to a non-polluting one as encompassed in green technology. But let no one expect that the whole world will start the process at the same time. The developing countries, in particular, can't move at the same pace with the developed world. I think that the right thing to do is for the G8 countries, for instance, to initiate the process of transiting to a green industrial technology culture.
Just as Britain started the industrial revolution and it spread from there to the rest of the world when the benefits became obvious, the G8 countries should spearhead the transition to green technology. When the rest of the world sees the benefits of greentech, like the industrial revolution, it will spread. But it would be foolhardy, if at the Copenhagen summit, the world body insist on carrying all countries at the same time. That would be undue politicking that won't help. Besides, the developed world should have a framework to assist developing countries to transit to green technology for it is in their own interest to do so. Developing countries should embrace good governance, which is a necessary condition for their transformation for the world is not waiting for them to catch up.
By Luke Onyekakeyah
Going by the hard scientific evidence alerting about the worsening climatic situation on all continents, the only option left to mankind is to take appropriate actions at local and international levels to curb climate change and reduce its impacts. Without such a line of action, the world stands endangered and no one knows what would happen next.
Incidentally, the ravages of climate change don't respect national boundaries or skin colour. The disasters don't draw boundary lines between the rich and poor countries. Whether it is Hurricane Katrina in the United States Gulf Coast or droughts in Africa or monsoon floods in Southeast Asia, it is humans of all colours and races and nationalities that suffer. Everyone is a victim and every nation pays the price. To a large extent, it is the developed countries that quite often pay the financial price of these disasters through financial assistance.
Against this background, the United Nations (UN) is leaving no stone unturned as the momentum gathers for the world to deliberate on these issues. For instance, the UN is championing some actions to ensure that everyone is involved and committed to any action the world decides to take. To this end, the UN has initiated an on-line signature campaign to draw the attention of peoples, communities and nations to the dangers ahead. It is calling for a million signatures to prepare what it calls a climate petition to be presented at the summit.
Besides, it is launching the first-ever Global Climate Week as part of the "Seal the Deal Campaign". The aim is "to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". The only way to achieve this is to set enforceable limits of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards to be observed by individual countries. Also, nations should adopt green mechanisms in industrial production that are environmentally friendly. A combination of these actions is expected to drastically reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses spilled into the atmosphere. The ultimate aim is to ensure a carbon-free industrial production economy.
At present, all the talks and discussion on this matter seem to focus on the major industrial economies of the world made up of the G8 countries. The G8 comprises of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States of America. However, France and the UK are calling for the expansion of the group to include five developing countries including Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. These countries have participated in the group's previous meetings in what is now referred to as G8+5.
I believe that these countries should spearhead any measures designed to limit greenhouse gas emission by virtue of their highly industrialised economies that contribute significant amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. For instance, the per capita greenhouse emission of Canada according to the World Resources Institute (WRI) in 2005 was 22.6 and USA 23.5.
This sharply contrasts with countries like Nigeria and Kenya with 2.1 and 0.3 respectively. Japan had 10.5 while the UK had 10.6. Whereas, these countries possess the technological know-how and capacity to develop new improved green technologies to sustain their industrial economies, the developing countries on the other hand lack both the capacity and technology to even adapt what is already in place. This is where the problem lies.
Thus, considering the unimpressive economic situation of most developing countries, it is understandable why these countries appear lukewarm to the call for the adoption of green technology as a way forward in the effort to curb climate change. This also explains why the West is championing the cause of green technology while the poor countries are uninterested about it.
I believe that the transition from non-green technology to a green technology should follow the same pattern that the industrial revolution followed. As a matter of fact, there was no consensus by the whole world to transit from the pre-industrial manual and draft-animal based economy towards machine-based manufacturing.
What started in Britain in late 18th and early 19th centuries saw major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining and transportation. These changes profoundly affected the socio-economic and cultural conditions in the UK. It was from Britain that the changes spread throughout Europe, North America and the entire world. The entire economic and industrial developments that abound all over the world started in one country - Great Britain.
It is obvious from the foregoing that the West started with non-green industrial technology with which they developed their economies and by extension caused climate change, which is now affecting the whole world.
For example, the West at the beginning of the industrial revolution embraced coal technology as a major source of industrial power. From coal, they moved on to the exploitation of fossil fuels, particularly, crude oil. From the processing of crude oil to its use in internal combustion engines, it is pollution all through. Besides, the urbanised culture that followed the industrial revolution further engendered major land use changes that saw the destruction of large swaths of forests that hitherto served as carbon sink. The land use changes were carried out to create space for cities, highways, roads, canals, etc. All these were the principal movers of industrial development in the developed world.
From this angle, many argue that the developing countries can't in all honesty subscribe to the new green technology culture wholesale without loosing out on development. This is assuming that they have the appropriate technology to make the change possible but the truth is that they don't have it. It is difficult to imagine how massive economic development would have been possible in the West without taking those destructive actions that impacted on the global environment.
Based on the same premise, it is not known how a country like Nigeria would develop without following to some extent the same pathway followed by Britain at the beginning of industrial revolution. The same applies to all developing poor countries in Africa, Asia, and South America. For me this is the dilemma faced by these countries and the world, which the summit should address.
I am not saying that clean development is not possible. In fact, it is very possible and sometimes cheaper in the long run. What I'm saying is that the developing countries are caught up in an excruciating underdevelopment quagmire that many of them don't even know how to handle. For me, it is more economical to adopt green technologies because of its many advantages.
For instance, green technology is sustainable, it creates re-useable products, it reduces waste and pollution, and it is innovative and viable. I have often illustrated the adoption of green technology with the transition from charcoal/firewood to cooking gas or to electric heater in many Nigerian communities.
There is no doubt that a woman using the three different technologies to prepare the same food will have varied experiences to get the food ready on the dining table. Of course, the woman using gas or electric cooker will prepare the food faster and at the same time generate little or no pollution than the woman using firewood/charcoal. There is no doubt that the adoption of green technology will serve nations better than otherwise.
Based on the foregoing, I believe that the developing countries will be glad to transit form the use of polluting industrial technology to a non-polluting one as encompassed in green technology. But let no one expect that the whole world will start the process at the same time. The developing countries, in particular, can't move at the same pace with the developed world. I think that the right thing to do is for the G8 countries, for instance, to initiate the process of transiting to a green industrial technology culture.
Just as Britain started the industrial revolution and it spread from there to the rest of the world when the benefits became obvious, the G8 countries should spearhead the transition to green technology. When the rest of the world sees the benefits of greentech, like the industrial revolution, it will spread. But it would be foolhardy, if at the Copenhagen summit, the world body insist on carrying all countries at the same time. That would be undue politicking that won't help. Besides, the developed world should have a framework to assist developing countries to transit to green technology for it is in their own interest to do so. Developing countries should embrace good governance, which is a necessary condition for their transformation for the world is not waiting for them to catch up.
By Luke Onyekakeyah
Comments
Post a Comment