The inconsistency and policy somersaults that have become the hallmark of governance in Nigeria got another devastating advertisement when Environment Minister, Amina Mohammed surreptitiously announced the other day in Abuja that Nigeria committed to a 20% unconditional and 45% conditional greenhouse gases emission reduction at the Paris climate conference, dubbed COP21. The Minister said it would cost between six and 30% of GDP (over $460 billion) to fight the impact of climate change, as Nigeria will be one of the most climate vulnerable countries in the world by 2050. The global community has committed to prevent global temperature from exceeding two degree Celsius by 2100. Failure to which, the world risks catastrophic storms, cyclones, droughts, melting artic ice, ocean heat expansion and rising sea levels with dire consequence for coastline communities. But it is arguable whether Nigeria and Africa should be part of the global compact on climate change. This should be the business of the major polluters – China, America, India, European Union. Therefore, Nigeria ought not to be a signatory to the climate protocol because it is not yet industrialized.
The Environment Minister painted an alarmist picture of the impact of climate change on Nigeria. “These impacts are threatening the livelihoods of every Nigerian as 70% of the country’s population relies on climate-sensitive activities for income. Its impacts aggravate regional conflicts and breeding ground for terrorism in the North East,” she noted. To this end, she said gas flaring will end in Niger Delta by 2030, and government plans to use the products for commercial purposes to generate power. Nigeria would reap as much as $7.5 billion worth of benefits to its citizens through the process. Quoting World Bank estimates that, adding a combination of low carbon activities would boost the economy and add 20% to the GDP, she cautioned that to address the challenges of climate change, Nigeria’s climate plans must align with UN Sustainable Development Goals, (SDGs).
This obviously amounts to putting the cart before the horse, because Nigeria contributes nothing significant to the global carbon footprint. The country’s carbon footprint per capita is less than 0.1 per cent. Of course, Nigeria faces the problem of gas flaring and crude oil pollution and vehicles are also polluters, especially in Lagos. But the proposed reduction of up to 45% of greenhouse emissions makes no economic sense. If anything, it amounts to a unilateral surrender. Granted that there must be a target for carbon emission reduction, government’s environmental policies must be interpreted into other sectors, even as obnoxious policies and prebendal privileges fostered by corruption have turned statutory and essential government activities into strenuous tasks, as the nation wallows as a typically consumerist economy. Climate change and global warming is largely a consequence of industrial production by the developed economies with vested economic interests.
The main polluters – US, China, India and EU should be the countries making such far-reaching commitments. China, the world’s chief polluter, accounting for about 27% aims to cut its GHG per unit of gross domestic product by 60-65%. The US, generating about 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, pledged a cut by 26-28% by 2025. India which accounts for 7% of the global carbon emissions would reduce emissions intensity of its GDP by 33-35% by 2030. So, the question is: why would Nigeria with a carbon footprint less than 0.1 % cut emissions by 20%?
The level of socio-economic and infrastructural development in Africa is abysmal. According to the 2015 African Progress Report (APR) by the Africa Progress Panel (APP) chaired by former UN Secretary General, Kofi Anan, Africa’s energy gap and associated inequalities will increase its share of the world’s population without electricity from 47.6% to 66.6%, and the share without clean cooking facilities will rise from 26.3% to 34.8% by 2030. The APR estimates the cost of energy to poor households in Africa, those spending $2.5 per day, at $10 billion per annum. This compares to $0.15 billion in Britain and $0.12 billion in America. Put differently, Africa’s poorest people are paying among the world’s highest prices for energy, paying 20 times more on average. In perspective, a woman in rural northern Nigeria pays 60 to 80 times more than a resident of New York, and the same woman pays 30 times more than a resident of Lagos. The APR notes that reducing energy costs by investing in modern energy would increase household savings and reduce poverty.
The 2015 APR highlights other sobering African statistics: 621 million Africans do not have access to electricity; 60% of Sub-Saharan Africa’s energy is consumed by South Africa; 93 million Nigerians lack access to electricity, followed by Ethiopia (70 million) and DRC (60 million); Most of these people are in the rural areas. In nine African countries, over 80% of primary schools have no electricity. In Africa, the poorest households spend 20 times more per unit of energy than the wealthiest households with a connection to the Grid. On current trends, it will take Africa until 2080 to achieve universal access to electricity. These statistics call for urgent action but such action must be closely aligned to renewable energy to power Africa. In ways that are ingenious, Africa must look inward for solutions to its peculiar climate circumstances, by striking the right balance between industrialization or remain doomed to their peripheral status in the global economy.
Africa has one of the lungs of the world –the equatorial rain forest which stretches from the Congo basin through West Africa. The Amazon in Brazil is the other lung which keeps planet earth breathing. With about 80% of the world’s arable land, Africa has the potential to feed the rest of the world. Africans can protect this world’s arable land but the developed economies must be ready to pay for it. After destroying their own forests to build skyscrapers and highways; having cut their trees to build industries and manufacturing, it is hypocritical for developed nations to ask Africans not to cut their own trees to meet their energy needs, considering that 80% of Africans; approximately 730 million people, rely on mainly fuelwood and charcoal, for cooking. Of this number, 600,000 die annually from air pollution from firewood use and the number is rising such that it is estimated to potentially surpass major killers like HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria by 2030. This and other issues ought to have been raised by African leaders at the summit.
Despite concerns voiced by stakeholders, on the negative impact on the economy, the Nigerian government has not heeded expert advice. What is even sadder and unbearable is the absence of any commensurate investment in the social safety net to mitigate the impacts of the commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. The new policy should therefore be put on hold until all the necessary groundwork is done to save Nigerians the hardship that its implementation will inflict. The government cannot be so insensitive to the plight of the citizens.
