The Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC Ltd.) has called for more collaboration and transparency among parties in the global quest to phase out carbon emissions across the oil and gas value chain.
Group Chief Executive Officer of NNPC Ltd, Mr Mele Kyari
The NNPC Ltd. said more collaboration in the global energy industry was paramount to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
Malam Mele Kyari, the Group Chief Executive Officer, NNPC Ltd, said this at the on-going Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference (ADIPEC 2024) in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates on Tuesday, November 5, 2024.
Kyari, represented by NNPC Ltd’s Executive Director, Upstream, Mrs Oritsemeyiwa Eyesan, addressed a Strategic Panel Session titled: “Decarbonising Operations across Upstream, Midstream and Downstream.”
Kyari said beyond collaboration, transparency and openness, there was the need to ensure that the gaps between all parties were bridged.
“Africa is currently facing the challenge of tackling the twin problem of decarbonisation and energy poverty and to deal with such challenge, Nigeria made two fundamental policy shifts to support the nation’s decarbonisation process.
“One is declaring the decade of gas as transition fuel from a predominantly diesel and fuel economy to a gas-driven economy, while the second is the removal of fuel subsidy.
“The NNPC Ltd. has relied on these two policies to drive the nation’s decarbonisation agenda,” Kyari said.
He said that as a signatory to the Oil and Gas Decarbonisation Charter (OGDC), Nigeria was focused on achieving gas flare-out by 2030 through the utilisation of gas for automotive and power generation.
According to Kyari, Nigeria sits on huge gas reserves of up to 209 trillion cubic feet (tcf), and access to capital for funding gas projects has been a challenge.
He said that the balance sheet which could be easily used for raising money to fund gas projects, comes mostly from the International Oil Companies (IOCs), which was also largely focused on export gas.
“If we must solve this existential problem, then, there should be a provision for the global south (less energy endowed countries) to access capital to enable them address their problems,” he said.
Kyari decried all parties being placed in the same bracket in the quest to decarbonise, because the pace of progress was based on current state of the countries.
According to him, the OGDC must continue to provide a level playing field.
With more than 180,000 participants in attendance, ADIPEC is adjudged to be the world’s largest and most inclusive gathering of energy professionals.
This year’s edition, the 40th in the series of the annual event, holds under the theme, “Connecting Minds. Transforming Energy”.
A new World Health Organisation (WHO) study published on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, in eBioMedicinenames 17 pathogens that regularly cause diseases in communities as top priorities for new vaccine development. The WHO study is the first global effort to systematically prioritise endemic pathogens based on criteria that included regional disease burden, antimicrobial resistance risk and socioeconomic impact.
Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General, World Health Organisation (WHO)
The study reconfirms longstanding priorities for vaccine research and development (R&D), including for HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis – three diseases that collectively take nearly 2.5 million lives each year.
The study also identifies pathogens such as Group A streptococcus and Klebsiella pneumoniae as top disease control priorities in all regions, highlighting the urgency to develop new vaccines for pathogens increasingly resistant to antimicrobials.
“Too often global decisions on new vaccines have been solely driven by return on investment, rather than by the number of lives that could be saved in the most vulnerable communities,” said Dr Kate O’Brien, Director of the Immunisation, Vaccines and Biologicals Department at WHO. “This study uses broad regional expertise and data to assess vaccines that would not only significantly reduce diseases that greatly impact communities today but also reduce the medical costs that families and health systems face.”
WHO asked international and regional experts to identify factors that are most important to them when deciding which vaccines to introduce and use. The analysis of those preferences, combined with regional data for each pathogen, resulted in top 10 priority pathogens for each WHO region. The regional lists where then consolidated to form the global list, resulting in 17 priority endemic pathogens for which new vaccines need to be researched, developed and used.
This new WHO global priority list of endemic pathogens for vaccine R&D supports the Immunisation Agenda 2030’s goal of ensuring that everyone, in all regions, can benefit from vaccines that protect them from serious diseases. The list provides an equitable and transparent evidence base to set regional and global agendas for new vaccine R&D and manufacturing, and is intended to give academics, funders, manufacturers and countries a clear direction for where vaccine R&D could have the most impact.
This global prioritisation exercise for endemic pathogens, complements the WHO R&D blueprint for epidemics, which identified priority pathogens that could cause future epidemics or pandemics, such as COVID-19 or severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).
The findings of this new report on endemic pathogens are part of WHO’s work to identify and support the research priorities and needs of immunisation programmes in low- and middle-income countries, to inform the global vaccine R&D agenda, and to strategically advance development and uptake of priority vaccines, particularly against pathogens that cause the largest public health burden and greatest socioeconomic impact.
WHO Priority endemic pathogens list
Vaccines for these pathogens are at different stages of development.
Pathogens where vaccine research is needed
Group A streptococcus
Hepatitis C virus
HIV-1
Klebsiella pneumoniae
Pathogens where vaccines need to be further developed
Cytomegalovirus
Influenza virus (broadly protective vaccine)
Leishmania species
Non-typhoidal Salmonella
Norovirus
Plasmodium falciparum (malaria)
Shigella species
Staphylococcus aureus
Pathogens where vaccines are approaching regulatory approval, policy recommendation or introduction
Greenpeace Africa activists disrupted the Africa Energy Week (AEW) conference in Cape Town, South Africa, on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, with banners and a disruption of speeches to protest expansion plans by energy companies across the continent.
Greenpeace activists at the Africa Energy Week
The 12 activists blocked the Cape Town International Convention Centre (CTICC) entrance, where AEW is being held, until being evacuated by security. The blockage used banners and remains of tragic extreme weather events, fuelled by emissions of international oil and gas companies, such as the catastrophic tornado in Tongaat, Durban, to create a powerful visual representation of the destruction caused by Big Oil.
This included twisted metal, shattered wood, and other remnants of climate-induced devastation, making it impossible for attendees to ignore the damages that climatologists attribute to emissions by the oil and gas industry.
They also interrupted the keynote speech by event organiser, NJ Ayuk, before being removed from the main hall.
Sherelee Odayar, Greenpeace Africa’s Oil and Gas Campaigner, said: “We are protesting against one of the most egregious gatherings of fossil fuel profiteers. The AEW brings together the biggest polluters, including TotalEnergies, BP, ExxonMobil, and others, who continue to push Africa further into the climate crisis while reaping billions in profits. This is a shameless platform for multinational oil corporations to strike deals that line their pockets at the expense of African communities.”
At the conference centre, prominent banners read “No New Oil and Gas in Africa,” “Extreme Weather Events, Proudly Sponsored by Fossil Fuel,” and “Make Polluters Pay,” as the activists chanted, “Climate Justice Now.”
Cynthia Moyo, Greenpeace Africa’s Climate and Energy Campaigner, said: “We are returning debris from extreme weather events, symbolic of the damage caused by Big Oil, to the very corporations responsible. Africa will not remain silent while oil giants profit from our suffering. We cannot allow Africa to be sacrificed on the altar of fossil fuel profits. The voices of our communities must be heard, and the corporations responsible for this crisis must be made to pay for the harm they have caused.”
Abdoulaye Diallo, Co-Head of Greenpeace International’s Stop Drilling Start Paying campaign, said: “Together with communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis, we are protesting outside the sheltered offices of some of the world’s largest polluters. We reject Big Oil’s assault on people and democracy and demand governments finally redress this by forcing oil and gas companies to stop drilling and start paying for the damage they have done.”
Africa Energy Week, organised by the African Energy Chamber (AEC), is marketed as the solution to Africa’s energy poverty. Led by the lobbyist NJ Ayuk, the AEC pushes policies that appear to prioritise fossil fuel exploitation over the needs of the African people. Such policies are believed to have left more than 600 million Africans without access to electricity and nearly one billion without clean cooking solutions while destroying local ecosystems and increasing insecurity.
Greenpeace Africa demands a stop to the expansion of fossil fuels – no new oil, gas, or coal, adding that fossil fuel corporations must also pay for the destruction they have caused across Africa.
“We call for a just transition that redirects investment from fossil fuel energy projects to renewable energy solutions that uplift African communities, create green jobs, and protect our ecosystems.
“We also demand that global financial institutions, including the IMF, World Bank, and private investors, immediately stop funding fossil fuel projects in Africa, which exacerbate the climate crisis. It is time to support a clean, green future for the continent,” stated Greenpeace.
Last week, at the 16th Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), private capital investment advisors and policy advisors called for the establishment of a Just Transition Investment Fund to support countries and regions committed to phasing out fossil fuels and foster a regenerative future for all.
Participants at the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16) in Cali, Columbia
The call was coupled with the announcement that a working group comprising investment and policy advisors from the Global South, North America, the UK, and Australia has been formed to develop the fund.
Calls for a Just Transition Investment Fund were welcomed by the Government of Colombia hosting the CBD, alongside Small Island States, the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Organisation, and other leaders at COP16 across government, business, and civil society.
In September 2024, during New York Climate Week and the Summit for the Future, over 30 investors and advisors from family offices, impact investing networks, philanthropy, asset managers, and academia met at a private roundtable to discuss the formation of this fund, agreeing to work together and announce initial plans by COP29 in Baku, with a launch in 2025 at COP30.
“The proposed ‘Fund’ would provide catalytic investment to help create inclusive, equitable, and regenerative economies. By supporting the shift from a fossil-fuel-based economy to one founded on regenerative principles, nature-based solutions, and renewable energy, the Fund aims to foster the long-term macroeconomic stability needed to fulfill the Paris Agreement and advance our global plan for nature as we move beyond Net Zero to a truly regenerative economy,” said Professor Rajiv Joshi from Columbia University, who serves as Executive Director of Project Regeneration and Lead Author of the Decisive Decade Inquiry into the future of climate action, commissioned by Christiana Figueres, architect of the Paris Climate Agreement.
Joshi, who was a co-founding board member of the We Mean Business Coalition, a founding member of the UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, and a founding member of The B Team, moderated the inaugural roundtable meeting with investors to support the Fund’s development. This effort builds on his work with Scotland’s Just Transition Commission alongside Professor Jim Skea, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in developing Scotland’s recent report on delivering a Just Transition.
Central to the Fund’s development strategy is the integration of diverse perspectives to address systemic barriers that limit private capital investment in the Global South. The Fund focuses on building bridges between communities and regions most impacted by fossil fuel extraction, those under-invested in for energy access, and global investment and policy advisors, ensuring that private capital and local communities are equal stakeholders.
Peter Hall, Managing Director of Resonance Climate Impact Advisory, expressed his support for the Fund, stating, “The private sector is uniquely positioned to unlock capital, create solutions, and catalyse action for projects urgently needed to protect the estimated 3.6 billion people in the Global South currently facing climate impacts. With global adaptation finance representing only 5% of total climate finance, the urgency for a fund like this could not be greater.
“The Just Transition Investment Fund provides a platform to access aligned private finance, fully leveraging scale, innovation, and local impact, and is strategically positioned with a risk-return profile that meets the requirements of a broad spectrum of investors while supporting vital projects across the Global South. I am excited to support this Fund and the impact it will create as we prepare for its launch at COP30, uniting climate funding, projects, and the community of practitioners dedicated to financing a regenerative future for all.”
Nigel Lake, co-founder and Executive Chair of Pottinger, echoed Peter’s sentiment: “This is a critically important initiative – not only for the nations involved but for everyone. Many of the investments needed to accelerate the energy transition and address ecological degradation and biodiversity collapse already make commercial sense on paper. However, financial barriers often undermine their viability and impede the flow of benefits to local communities. This new fund can serve as a powerful catalyst to overcome these challenges.”
The Fund aims to accelerate investment in renewable energy and regenerative, nature-positive solutions by increasing private capital participation and enabling co-investment on a project-by-project basis. Projects and technologies that demonstrate commercial viability in real-world operational environments, and deliver a fair sharing of benefits, will be prioritised.
By aligning stakeholder interests, coordinating commercial and technical support, and building capacity for projects to generate predictable cash flows, the Fund will help de-risk initiatives, supporting them through to financial close and beyond, and enabling more robust, scalable transitions to regenerative economies. This structure is designed to provide critical support not only to middle-income economies like Colombia but also to small island developing states.
“There is a growing recognition that direct investments in nature and climate hold substantial commercial potential. However, these investments often present an atypical risk profile. We need a blueprint for innovative financial instruments that can scale public and private investment in high-quality, nature-positive and climate solutions aimed at phasing out fossil fuels. The ambition to create an investment fund that pools private capital and fosters collective knowledge sharing to support these solutions will boost market confidence, and I am fully supportive of this endeavour,” said Hannah Cool, Chief Operating Officer at B4NZ (formally Bankers for Net Zero), who convened the UK chapter of the Net Zero Banking Alliance.
Jeroen Rijpkema, CEO at Triodos Bank, a B4NZ member and Treaty endorser, also showed support of the launch, stating, “The launch of the working group to develop the Just Transition Investment Fund marks an important milestone to advance the Treaty’s mission and realize its vision by creating a stable business environment with a long-term perspective to support countries and regions committed to phasing out fossil fuels.
“This initiative is a testament to our commitment to actionable progress, creating the stability needed to foster investments aimed at accelerating the energy transition. By engaging a broad spectrum of stakeholders – from family offices and asset managers to local communities and capacity-building resources – we’re building essential bridges to overcome barriers and mobilise capital.”
At an official side-event hosted by the Colombian Government at COP16 on “Phasing Out Fossil Fuels to Make Peace With Nature,” Dr. Kumi Naidoo, President of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Organisation, welcomed the call for the Fund and the support it has quickly garnered:
He added: “One of the ways the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Organisation initiative is advancing efforts to make peace with nature is by welcoming calls from investors and private capital to establish a Just Transition Investment Fund that invests in energy diversity and economic diversification in jurisdictions committed to a fair fossil fuel phase out.
“The mobilisation of private capital must be matched by long-overdue commitments and obligations of public finance from Global North countries. We hope these private capital mobilisation efforts will add momentum toward a global fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty – a legal mechanism essential for all to genuinely protect life on Earth.”
Colombia is among more than a dozen countries, over a hundred municipalities and sub-national governments, 3,500 organisations, including private sector actors such as the Global Alliance for Banking on Values, and nearly a million individuals who have endorsed the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Organisation’s campaign for a global treaty. One objective of the Treaty is to establish financial mechanisms to support, encourage, and accelerate the just transition globally for participating countries.
The Fund’s working group has already begun conducting due diligence on a shortlist of Colombian projects, assessing them against initial investment criteria. The Ministry of Mines and Energy provided the following information on a project titled “Amazon Movement”. This initiative combines energy communities and e-mobility as sustainable and productive alternatives to the extraction of natural resources, supporting river mobility and fostering new local economies for Indigenous communities in the Amazon region.
Amazon Movement promotes renewable energy projects that contribute to the territorial development of the Amazon through electric river mobility and energy access in non-interconnected areas (ZNI), harnessing the region’s water potential (hydropower) with a socio-environmental approach. The project guarantees participation rights, a healthy environment, and the cultural integrity of Indigenous populations.
The Amazon Movement project transcends a purely technological scope, aiming to be a transformative solution for beneficiary communities. It addresses their needs and expectations, strengthens productive projects and local economies, and enables access to green mobility and sustainable transportation. Additionally, the project contributes to peacebuilding in territories most affected by internal armed conflict.
Additional projects, such as one titled Energy Stations – a new concept for charging infrastructure that includes not only energy for e-vehicles but also additional income models like “Energy as a Service” – and another titled E-Mobility for 2 and 3-Wheelers, which aims to implement a sustainable e-mobility program by replacing internal combustion engine bicycles, motorcycles, and 3-wheelers with electric vehicles, are also being evaluated.
“Now is the time to put all the pieces of the puzzle together to accelerate genuine climate action and regenerative solutions,” said Dylan Malloy, Managing Director of Bridging Ventures and Director of the working group to establish the Just Transition Investment Fund. “We need to harness the wealth of information and resources available today, even though they may be fragmented across various stakeholders and organisations, to address barriers to transition finance. Our approach must prioritise effective communication among stakeholders to foster common ground. This requires a commitment to clarity and transparency, enabling us to align interests. Ultimately, this collaborative effort will yield a compelling business case for investors and mobilise the flow of capital to regenerative solutions in global communities,” added Malloy.
The call for the Just Transition Investment Fund came as governments and observers at COP16 reiterated the need for developed country governments to fulfill their commitments under both the biodiversity and climate conventions, to scale appropriate financing in line with their legal and historical responsibilities, and to support G20 research into the formation of Life Economies. It is also being issued prior to the US election, acknowledging the potential impact of American private capital on accelerating the transition.
The overall aim of the talks that concluded in Cali was to drive the development of a global plan to protect nature, focusing on targets to reduce extinction rates. However, with emissions still rising and a new UN report indicating that global temperatures are on track to increase by 2.5 to 2.9 degrees Celsius by the century’s end, governments risk falling short of their commitments under both the biodiversity pact and the Paris Climate Agreement.
Cali has also set the stage for the upcoming UN Climate Conference in Baku (COP29), where leaders will discuss financing the transition away from fossil fuels before looking ahead to COP30 in Brazil next year. COP30 in Belém will serve as a critical accountability milestone, marking ten years since the Paris Climate Agreement and providing an opportunity to review progress on global climate commitments, while also underscoring the importance of complementary instruments such as a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty and pools of patient capital to enable a fast and fair transition.
International calls to scale up private finance have been growing for some time. Initial momentum for these efforts began with the inclusion of a Just Transition Work Programme in the Paris rulebook at COP26 in Glasgow in 2021 and continued at COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh.
Then, at the Mo Ibrahim Governance Weekend in Nairobi in 2023, leaders such as Mary Robinson, Graça Machel, and a coalition of intergenerational advocates prepared for the Africa Climate Action Summit later that year, which featured the launch of the Independent Expert Group on Just Transition and Development’s report on Africa’s Just Transition.
This groundwork laid the foundation for COP28 in Dubai, where countries agreed on language supporting a transition from fossil fuels, further bolstering momentum for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty to guide nations in negotiating the terms of this transition.
UK Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, on Monday, November 4, 2024, launched a landmark report at a growth and renewable energy reception in Lagos on the opportunities for Africa in the global battery value chain.
UK Foreign Secretary (left) listens to Yusuf Umar, CEO of RIPLE (clean energy investment platform of Nigeria’s National Sovereign Investment Authority) highlight where the U.K. can continue to support Nigeria’s energy transition
The report, titled “From Minerals to Manufacturing: Africa’s Competitiveness in Global Battery Supply Chains”, was undertaken through the UK’s Manufacturing Africa programme in partnership with the UK’s flagship research organisation on batteries and energy storage, the Faraday Institution, and reveals cost-competitive investment opportunities in the battery supply chain in Africa.
Key findings indicate that, with the right investment and policy environment, refining locally extracted lithium, nickel, manganese and copper in Africa could be up to 40% more competitive than the rest of the world by 2030. With just one high-quality refinery for each of these minerals, Africa could generate an additional $6.8 billion in annual revenues and create approximately 3,500 good quality jobs operating in the battery supply chain.
Beyond mineral refining, initial analysis suggests that countries like Tanzania and Morocco could produce batteries that are cost-competitive with Europe under certain conditions. For example, Morocco could achieve production costs of $72/kWh and Tanzania at $68/kWh, compared to $68/kWh in Europe, where production benefits from subsidies.
The report also estimates battery demand, identifies additional opportunities in battery packs and in battery assembly and recycling, maps where companies are operating in battery value chains across Africa and provides recommendations for policymakers and investors on how to advance these initiatives.
This report follows the Foreign Secretary’s speech at Kew Gardens on September 17, 2024, where he announced his intention to work with partners to create a Global Clean Power Alliance.
At the event in Lagos, the Foreign Secretary met with investors, development partners and companies in the clean energy sector, including UK smart-meter firm SteamaCo, and UK e-waste firm Hinckley Recycling, with whom he assembled a second life battery. Both firms are invested in Nigeria.
Director for Economic Development and Partnerships at the UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, Helen King, said: “This report shows that investors should give serious consideration to Africa’s potential as a future manufacturer of batteries, not just a buyer. The UK Government has a clear mission to support global growth that is inclusive of people and planet, and this sector presents real opportunity for African growth and jobs. We look forward to engaging with policy makers and investors on taking forward the outcomes of this report and doing the hard work to realise the opportunity it represents.”
The Managing Director of Nigeria’s Sovereign Investment Authority, Aminu Umar-Saqid, said:“With Nigeria’s growing demand for electricity, bridging the gap between the traditional energy infrastructure and renewable energy solutions, enhanced by energy storage, is as vital as localising the supply chain. The NSIA, through its subsidiary – RIPLE – is piloting the development of an integrated battery manufacturing facility to bolster Nigeria’s industrial base and support the nation’s Energy Transition Plan. This report, sponsored by the FCDO under its Manufacturing Africa Programme has been instrumental in calibrating our strategy thus providing a solid base for the development of our initiative.”
The CEO for the Faraday Institution, Professor Martin Freer, said:“Given the abundance of critical natural minerals in Africa, African nations could play a significant role in the global battery supply chain if they could overcome investment, infrastructure and workforce challenges. The report contains a wealth of information and analysis on the subject that will be valuable to a variety of stakeholders including potential investors in projects in other parts of the battery value chain beyond mining.”
Manufacturing Africa Programme Nigeria Country Lead, Kemi Onabanjo, said: “This report shows that investment in battery manufacturing in Africa can be a win-win, creating jobs and growth locally while driving down production costs and supporting global climate goals. Translating Africa’s abundance of critical mineral wealth into jobs and growth means African economies capturing a greater share of the manufacturing process once minerals are out of the ground. The UK-Aid funded Manufacturing Africa project does exactly this, and we have already mobilised £1.2 billion in FDI for local manufacturing and created 95,000 jobs across the continent through similar support.”
The Federal Government of Nigeria has reaffirmed its dedication to minimise environmental waste and promote a circular economy, supporting sustainable development.
Malam Balarabe Lawal, Minister of Environment
Minister of Environment, Balarabe Lawal, made this declaration at a sensitisation workshop for FCT Judiciary on Circular Economy in Abuja on Monday, November 4, 2024.
The event was organised by the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) and the European Union.
Lawal, who was represented by Mrs Bahijjahtu Abubakar, Director, Department of Pollution Control and Environmental Health, Ministry of Environment, said the workshop was timely and essential.
Lawal emphasised the judiciary’s vital role in advancing environmental sustainability and fostering a circular economy transition.
“By embedding circular principles, Nigeria can create opportunities for innovation, job creation, and resource conservation.
“This approach prioritises sustainable production, responsible consumption, and innovative waste management solutions,” he stated.
Lawal stressed that Nigeria’s transition to a circular economy was crucial for achieving sustainable development goals and honoring global commitments.
“The judiciary plays a pivotal role in upholding environmental laws, ensuring enforcement, and promoting sustainability,” he said.
Dr Innocent Barikor, NESREA Director-General, highlighted the importance of strengthened legislative frameworks and enforcement for effective implementation.
Mr Isa Abdulssalam, NESREA Director of Inspection and Enforcement, emphasised the enormous benefits of circular economy and the judiciary’s valuable role in advocating for sustainable practices.
The workshop aims to deepen judicial officers’ understanding of circular economy, explore legal frameworks, and identify ways to promote sustainability.
To contribute to the public debate on the energy transition, TotalEnergies is publishing the 6th edition of its “TotalEnergies Energy Outlook”, which presents three scenarios for the possible evolution of the demand and the global energy system up to 2050.
TotalEnergies
TotalEnergies Energy Outlook 2024
This year, in addition to the Momentum and Rupture scenarios presented in previous editions of its Energy Outlook, TotalEnergies has developed a new scenario, Trends, which reflects the current trajectory of the various countries up to 2030 and the organisation’s anticipation of technological developments and public policies in line with current trends. This scenario enables TotalEnergies to present the expected evolution of the energy system up to 2050 in line with current trends and the efforts still required to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
Access to energy essential to meet development needs
Today, around 4.5 billion people have access to a level of energy that is below what is deemed necessary for satisfactory human development, particularly in terms of access to healthcare and education.
Demographic forecasts indicate that the world’s population will increase by 1.7 billion by 2050, in India and the Global South. Ensuring sufficient access to energy for the world’s entire population today requires tripling the energy available in the least developed countries. Taking into account their expected population growth, by 2050 they will need four times more energy than today. Our collective challenge is therefore to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while responding to the legitimate demand for more energy for the population of emerging countries.
An energy transition underway but which ought to be accelerated
Since 2000, we have experienced a decoupling between GDP growth and energy demand growth. Electricity has grown faster than the other energies, and renewables have accelerated their growth since 2015. However, demand for coal, which is often domestic and inexpensive, continues to grow, and energy intensity gains (1.4% per year observed over 2000-2022) remain below the ambition set at COP28 (3% to 4% per year).
Analysis by geographical zone shows that rising living standards, particularly in India and China, are the main drivers of the increase in energy demand in recent years.
Two major developments occurred in the last 20 years that will shape the energy transition: the shale gas and oil revolution in the United States has transformed the energy landscape in the United States and around the world; and a few low-carbon technologies, in particular solar panels and electric vehicles, have made sufficient progress to be deployed on a large scale and be cost-competitive for consumers, provided that, at the same time, electricity networks receive sufficient investment.
Three scenarios for the next 30 years
The “Trends” scenario reflects the current trajectory of the various countries up to 2030 and incorporates our anticipation of future technological and public policy developments in line with current trends. It accounts for the recent acceleration in the penetration of mature decarbonization technologies: solar and wind power to produce electricity, electric vehicles and heat pumps to use it, particularly in China. However, infrastructure constraints (in particular electricity grids) and geopolitical tensions are limiting their large-scale deployment. This scenario yields an estimated temperature increase between +2.6° and +2.7°C by 2100.
TotalEnergies’ “Momentum” scenario is a forward-looking approach integrating the decarbonisation strategies of NZ50 countries, as well as the NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) of other countries.
It implies: (i) electrification of final demand in NZ50 countries and China, (ii) phasing-out coal in NZ50 countries, a sharp reduction in China and only slight growth in this energy source in the Global South countries, (iii) the use of natural gas as a transitional energy source for electricity and industry in all countries, and (iv) the deployment of new energies in non-electrifiable sectors (e.g. decarbonised hydrogen in industry and transport, sustainable fuels in aviation and marine) in NZ50 countries and China.
In this scenario, fossil fuels still cover half of the growth in energy demand in the Global South, due to insufficient low-carbon investment. This scenario yields an estimated temperature increase between +2.2° and +2.3°C by 2100.
“Rupture” is a normative scenario designed to achieve a temperature increase of less than 2°C by 2100. For example, moving from Trends to Rupture requires an 80% increase in installed solar and wind power capacity in India and the Global South by 2030. Beyond 2040, all decarbonization levers are applied globally, in particular the deployment of new energies and CCUS. In this scenario, decarbonized technologies are deployed globally according to their merit curve. This scenario yields an estimated temperature increase between +1.7° and +1.8°C by 2100.
To move from Trends to Rupture, the world should collectively give priority to existing technologies offering an acceptable abatement cost. In particular, public decision-makers should step up international cooperation to ensure that the cheapest technologies are available globally, and that financial instruments adapted to developing countries are deployed.
“To keep pace with the growth in energy demand which is essential to the legitimate improvement in the standard of living of the emerging countries’ population while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions, public policies and the players in the energy chain must give priority to mature and sufficiently affordable low-carbon technologies and cooperate to deploy them across the globe. This is the way to combine economic and social development with the acceleration of the energy transition,” said Aurélien Hamelle, Managing Director Strategy & Sustainability.
The Nigeria Hydrological Services Agency (NIHSA) has reaffirmed its commitment to enhancing monitoring strategies for both surface and groundwater reserves.
NIHSA’s Director General, Mr Umar Mohammed
This initiative aims to align with international best practices and mitigate the impact of flooding in Nigeria.
In a statement on Monday, November 4, NIHSA’s Director General, Umar Mohammed, stated that the severe flooding experienced in 2024 was primarily due to excessive rainfall and climate change.
He said NIHSA plans to conduct a national survey of major rivers and tributaries beginning next year to address these challenges.
“This initiative aims to identify key rivers for instrumentation and monitoring, thereby strengthening the agency’s flood prediction and early warning systems to protect lives, farmlands, and property,” he stated.
The D-G noted that water levels in the Niger and Benue Rivers have been steadily receding below flood levels in recent weeks, coinciding with the expected cessation of rain in the northern and central regions of the country.
He also noted that the incidence of flooding has significantly diminished and that NIHSA is taking proactive measures by conducting intervention studies in flood-affected states.
These studies, he said aim to understand why floodwaters remain stagnant in certain areas, which will help develop effective flood prevention strategies.
Mohammed expressed gratitude to all Nigerians and stakeholders for their roles in safeguarding lives and property during the challenging flood season.
For 34-year-old Mrs. Fatima Usman, the rainy season once meant hope and harvest. Living in the farmlands of Jigawa State, her family relied on the rains for prosperity.
Prof. Mohammed Ali Pate, Coordinating Minister of Health and Social Welfare
However, in recent years, that hope has turned to dread. Not only do floods destroy her crops, but they also bring waves of illness.
“It started two years ago. My husband had a fever that wouldn’t go away,” Usman shared.
According to her the Primary Health Care (PHC) in the area said it was malaria, but it kept coming back. “Last year, my youngest son got sick too. Since then, he has never been the same.”
Stories like Usman’s are all too common across rural Nigeria.
Climate change, experts say, has dramatically reshaped the health landscape, with diseases like malaria now sticking year-round due to warmer temperatures and increased rainfall creating ideal breeding conditions for mosquitoes.
For families like Usman’s, climate change isn’t an abstract concept, it’s a harsh daily reality.
The impacts of climate change on health are far-reaching, affecting both rural and urban areas.
In Lagos, 19-year-old university student, Tunde Adeyemi, described how the intensified heat waves have disrupted his daily life.
“The heat is like nothing I have ever felt.
“I can’t sleep, and my mother developed high blood pressure from the stress,” he Adeyemi explained.
Northern states, such as Kebbi, Zamfara, and Yobe, face their own challenges, including drought and desertification.
In the South, coastal states are increasingly vulnerable to floods, which pose significant risks of waterborne diseases.
This geographic diversity highlights how climate change-borne health impacts are unique across Nigeria.
Supported by the UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the World Health Organisation, Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Health has been working hard to address the challenge.
The team recently released findings from its first Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment (V&A), revealing a projected 21 per cent increase in the nation’s disease burden due to climate vulnerabilities.
The assessment shows that northern states face the highest risks due to extreme climate pressures, while coastal regions deal with rising sea levels and flood risks affecting hundreds of thousands.
Mr Godwin Brooks, Director, Climate Change and Health, Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, said that without intervention, cases of heat-related deaths could double by 2080, while waterborne diseases could increase drastically.
“Rising temperatures – possibly up to +3°C will intensify conditions for vector-borne diseases, while increased rainfall is likely to fuel waterborne diseases, with diarrheal deaths among children projected to account for nearly 10 per cent of such fatalities,” he said.
These findings from the V&A assessment now serve as the foundation for Nigeria’s first Health National Adaptation Plan (HNAP), designed to strengthen healthcare resilience against climate impacts.
At the just concluded 2024 Future of Health Conference, Prof. Mohammed Ali Pate, Coordinating Minister of Health and Social Welfare, stressed the need for immediate action.
The conference, with the theme: “From Evidence to Action: Building Resilience at the Climate- Health Nexus”, was organised by Nigeria Health Watch.
According to Pate, the climate and health challenge is not just a concern for the future; it is a pressing reality today. Addressing it is not optional but essential, he added.
The minister said rising temperatures were already worsening air quality, with respiratory diseases and cardiovascular issues on the rise.
“Food insecurity and malnutrition are also growing concerns, as climate-driven changes disrupt agriculture and reduce crop yields,” Pate added.
Ms Gloria Pallares, a global development, environment journalist and UN consultant, identifies a critical funding gap as a challenge.
“Less than one per cent of climate-related funding goes towards health, despite clear evidence of its impacts.
“This restricts essential health adaptations, including building resilient infrastructure and training community health workers,” she said.
Pallares stressed that an “all-society approach” is needed, calling for integrated policies to address climate and health as interlinked crises.
Dr Dave McConalogue, Senior Health Adviser, UK FCDO, highlighted Nigeria’s looming water crisis, saying: “By 2040 one-in-four Nigerian children will face high water stress, straining our health systems.
Speaking during a WHO presentation at a Climate Change and Health Technical Workshop organised by the World Bank in Abuja, Dr Edwin Isotu Edeh, National Technical Officer, Public Health and Environment, WHO Nigeria, stressed: “Climate change poses a direct threat to Nigeria’s health systems.
“We must take proactive steps to build a climate-smart health workforce to mitigate its impact and align climate actions into all programmes and services to save more lives.”
Edeh said the V&A report underlined the importance of community-driven adaptation measures, especially in high-risk areas.
Experts call for locally tailored responses, such as solar-powered healthcare centres in off-grid areas and mobile clinics for remote communities.
Mr Khadija Bobboyi, Health Security and Systems Lead at the African Health Budget Network (AHBN), underscores the need for Nigeria’s health systems to establish early warning systems for climate-sensitive diseases.
Mrs Elsie Ilori, former Director, Surveillance and Epidemiology, Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC), echoed these calls.
She said that diseases once considered rare, such as dengue and yellow fever, were reappearing in Nigerian communities.
“The climate crisis is reshaping Nigeria’s health landscape, and we must be proactive in adapting our healthcare systems,” Ilori said.
The costs associated with climate-related health issues are staggering.
Without adequate intervention, healthcare costs could spiral as resources are stretched to handle climate-induced health emergencies.
Dr Olumide Okunola, Senior Health Specialist, World Bank, explained that collaboration is essential to mitigate these impacts.
“Addressing climate change isn’t just about the environment; it’s about saving lives and ensuring social justice for those least responsible but most affected,” the minister stated.
Drawing on examples from Spain, where agriculture consumes 80 per cent of water resources, Pallares stressed the need for a holistic approach to resource management, aligning water and land policies with health objectives.
She urged Nigeria’s policymakers to consider other countries’ successful adaptations as models for creating resilient and health-focused climate policies.
For families like Usman’s, collaboration and rapid response are critical.
Her story and millions like hers reflect the urgent need for action to address the growing health burden linked to climate change.
Experts say that Nigeria’s health sector should adapt to this new normal with bold policies, community involvement, and innovative solutions.
As Pate said the time to act is now. To truly protect the health of Nigerians, governments, communities and individuals should work together to combat this growing challenge.
In this piece courtesy of Accion Acologica under its COP16 Series, the group attempts to justify why it is dangerous to talk about a $700 billion shortfall in biodiversity funding
Biodiversity funding protesters at CBD COP16
The COP16 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) held in Cali, Colombia, from October 21 to November 1, 2024.
The framework document for the negotiations at COP16 is Decision 15/4 adopted in 2022 by COP15, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GMBF).
The Global Mechanism for Biodiversity Finance (GMBF) sets, among its global targets for 2050, the goal of achieving sufficient financial resources to progressively close the US$700 billion annual biodiversity financing gap. For this reason, one of the key issues discussed in Cali at COP16 is the financial mechanisms needed to close this gap.
However, as with climate finance, which claims that at least $100 billion a year would be needed to combat climate change, these figures are wild calculations, clearly aimed at trying to save capitalism from its current crisis of accumulation.
One of the key reports for the CBD to have arrived at this $700 billion figure at the Kunming- Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is the document “Financing Nature: Closing the Global Biodiversity Finance Gap”.
“Financing Nature” was produced by three organisations. The Paulsen Institute, founded by Henry Paulsen, former US Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs senior manager; The Nature Conservancy, the world’s largest transnational conservationist and now a partner of the international financial system; and the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability, a US think tank created by David Atkinson, former vice president of JP Morgan, one of the world’s largest financial conglomerates.
The foreword to the publication includes names such as directors of the IMF, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the European Central Bank, as well as Michael Bloomberg, founder of the financial information company Bloomberg, among others.
It is not surprising that these reports, such as “Financing nature: Closing the global biodiversity finance gap”, are led by bankers, as they are not proposals to address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss or climate change, but to further the financialisation of nature in order to profit from environmental crises and favour the private corporate sector with the help of the global financial system.
In the following interview with Andre Standing of the Coalition for Fair Fisheries Agreements (CFFA), we will learn more about the “Financing Nature” report and the dangers of putting a price on biodiversity.
Acción Ecológica: Andre, you have just published a long article on the document “Financing Nature: Closing the Global Biodiversity Finance Gap”, which has become one of the most cited reports on biodiversity conservation. It is also referred to in Goal D of the Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework and was used to set precise targets for resource mobilisation by Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). So, it is argued at COP16 that there is a huge funding shortfall, or gap, of at least $700 billion a year.
Tell us, why is there so much talk about a biodiversity funding gap, what do you mean when you talk about a shortfall in the money that should be invested?
Andre Standing: “Financing nature” has been an incredibly influential report. Many organisations accept the $700 billion funding gap with blind faith, and of course this also includes the architects of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. There is something very attractive about seeing the biodiversity crisis as a problem that requires a lot of money to solve.
However, I think it is essential that people realise that this figure is nonsense, based on very dubious calculations. I also believe that the idea of a funding gap is a dangerous way to approach debates about what is needed to transform societies to improve nature conservation.
But it is an approach that suits many organisations.
Funding gap reports have become a popular type of publication in the last decade. They all follow the same formula and consistently show that the gap is so large that public funding cannot close it, so private funding must come to the rescue. Their recommendations always include strategies such as ‘blending’ public money with private investment.
So, the important thing to consider is that these reports on the funding gap, including “Financing Nature”, are ideologically motivated. No one should accept these figures unless they are willing to endorse the view that saving biodiversity depends on a massive transfer of power to the private financial sector.
Acción Ecológica: In your article you describe why the 700 billion figure is unreliable. Can you explain what the problems are with this figure?
Andre Standing: I think the problem is that many of the people who use this figure probably haven’t read the report in its entirety.
Reports on the financing gap start by establishing a baseline of what is currently being spent. Thus, the “Financing Nature” document attempts to account for all the money being spent in the world that would have a positive impact on biodiversity conservation. It seems strange to me to imagine that anyone could do this.
However, what the authors of this report did was to add up all the money spent by governments on biodiversity, with all the money spent through development aid, as well as the money spent through private finance and market- based schemes such as eco-labelling, biodiversity offsets and green bonds. The result, according to the authors, is that the world spends about $140 billion a year on saving biodiversity.
As I describe in my article, there are many problems with the underlying data. Part of the problem is that this method accounts for things that we know are ineffective. “Financing nature”, for example, assumes that when the World Bank reports that it has spent millions on a project aimed at forestry or fisheries reforms, that money has been successful. It also assumes that the billions spent on biodiversity offsets have produced a net benefit for nature.
A large part of the funds accounted for by this same report also comes from fake green bonds and the global value of things like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and “sustainable palm oil”.
But there are also more fundamental issues. The report assumes a straightforward link between money and biodiversity conservation. More money equals more success. But comparing the costs of a US company paying for a biodiversity offset with those of a community organisation working on a permaculture project in a Southern country makes no sense. What is also particularly problematic about “Financing Nature” is that it makes no effort to capture the efforts and expenditures of millions of Indigenous peoples and small farmers or fisherfolk who act as custodians of vast areas of the planet.
They are not included at all, whereas a few million dollars raised in a green bond is. Similarly, the value of a product with a corporate eco-label is added to the total biodiversity expenditure, but something produced by small-scale farmers or fishers without a label is not counted, even though we know that the latter is much more environmentally friendly than the former.
So, the baseline figure of what is being spent is not only false, but also based on the wrong perspective. There is no critical reflection on the results of the money earmarked to save nature. Much of the money represents corporate greenwashing, which, in fact, has a detrimental impact on biodiversity.
Acción Ecológica: So, if the “Financing Nature” report has invented a figure for what is spent, how does it arrive at a figure for what is needed?
André Standing: Well, the short answer is that they make up this figure based on a few controversial reports. It is incredible that the authors of the report claim to know how much money is needed to solve the biodiversity crisis.
Of course, the problem of calculating how much money is needed to save nature depends on the approach taken. A good example is the 30×30 target. In ‘Financing nature’ they draw on a figure produced by another report that estimated how much it would cost to declare 30% of the planet a strict nature reserve.
According to that report, the annual running costs of protected areas would amount to about 190 billion dollars. Many things could be said about the accuracy of that figure, but the most serious is that the $190 billion estimate is based on a specific type of management regime, based largely on law enforcement and ecotourism.
Someone would come to a completely different perspective on costs if they believed in protected areas managed by local communities, where many management functions are based on volunteerism and mutual aid.
I am particularly interested in marine fisheries, and “Financing Nature” assumed that the world needs to spend between $23 billion and $47 billion on fisheries management to ensure the sustainability of fisheries and the recovery of fish stocks. This is a ridiculous figure based on an obscure academic paper written by US marine biologists that projected the global costs of fisheries management if all countries managed their fisheries as the US does: through individual catch quotas.
Anyone familiar with fisheries knows that this model is totally unacceptable to many countries in the South, as it would jeopardise the livelihoods of millions of people. Also, a considerable amount of literature on fisheries management shows that how much governments spend on management is not a good indicator of how well fisheries are managed.
Experts disagree on what the ingredients for success are, but many point to the importance of democratic governance, the ability to resist corporate lobbying and corruption, and tenure systems that favour low-impact artisanal fishing methods. Money, or lack of it, is not the biggest problem.
So, if we ask ourselves how the authors of “Financing Nature” have arrived at an estimate of what needs to be spent, it is quite clear that these figures come from some very dubious research that no one should take seriously.
