Two years after it was agreed on, Nigeria may this year eventually ratify the Minamata Convention on Mercury, a global treaty aimed at protecting human health and the environment from the adverse effects of mercury. It was agreed at the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) in Geneva, Switzerland on Saturday, 19 January 2013.
President, World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry, Charles Brown (left); with executive director, SRADev Nigeria, Leslie Adogame, during the NGO Strategy Meeting in Lagos
Nigeria is one of the 128 signatories to the global treaty, which has already been ratified by 10 nations, which include: Djibouti (ratified 23-09-2104), Gabon (24-09-2014), Guinea (21-10-2014), Guyana (24-09-2014), Lesotho (12-11-2014), Monaco (24-09-2014), Nicaragua (29-10-2014), Seychelles (13-01-2015), USA (16-11-2013) and Uruguay (24-09-2014). Ratification by Nigeria automatically makes her a Party to the Convention with the duty to domesticate its content.
A minimum of 50 nations are required to ratify the Minamata Convention to make it legally binding.
Underlining the need for Nigeria to ratify the Convention, Charles Brown, president of the World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry (WAMFD), said recently in Lagos that the treaty’s emergence entailed a four-year process of international meetings or INCs that held in 2010 – Stockholm, Sweden; 2011 – Chiba, Japan; 2011 – Nairobi, Kenya; 2012 – Punta del Este, Uruguay; 2013 – Geneva, Switzerland; and 2014 – Bangkok, Thailand. In 2013, a Diplomatic Conference held in Kumamoto, Japan. This year’s INC is expected to hold in Jordan.
While acknowledging the role of the Africa region towards making the Convention a reality, Brown opined that ratifying the treaty is a “great” opportunity for Nigeria to lead, even though four other African nations (Gabon, Guinea, Djibouti and Seychelles) are already Parties to the Convention.
“We want to leapfrog past the amalgam stage to mercury-free dentistry. There are really no opposing views to the Convention in Nigeria, we are simply experiencing institutional delay, and I’m positive that that will be resolved shortly and it will be ratified,” said Brown at the “Nigerian NGO Strategy Meeting on Phasing Down Dental Amalgam Use” held on Saturday, April 18, 2015 in Lagos. Organised by WAMFD in conjunction with SRADev Nigeria, the day-long forum had “Towards a concerted and proactive effort to phase down dental amalgam use in Nigeria” as its theme.
According to him, the WAMFD is a US-based coalition of consumer, dental and environmental organisations working together to phase out amalgam use, while serving as a resource for nations working to implement the Minamata Convention’s amalgam phase-down measures.
Dental amalgam is a tooth filling material that is approximately 50% mercury, which is believed to be a highly polluting neurotoxin. Nations around the world are working to phase-down – and ultimately phase-out – amalgam use chiefly because dental mercury pollution is significant, mercury-free dental restorations are available, and the Minamata Convention on Mercury requires the phase-down of dental amalgam use.
Leslie Adogame, executive director of SRADev Nigeria, said: “Nigeria has signed the treaty. But, by signing, it merely shows that you are part of the process and you stand by it. Ratification however means that you are now a Party and ready to domesticate it by, for example, making local legislations.”
According to him, Nigeria became a signatory to the Convention on 10 October, 2013. “The Convention highlights actions to reduce mercury emissions to the air from identified sources, reduce the use of mercury in products and industrial processes, and to address mercury supply and trade. In addition, it contains provisions to address the severe and growing problem of mercury use in artisanal gold mining,” he added.
Adogame pointed out that the signing of the Convention would enable Nigeria to:
Develop a National Implementation Strategy (NIS)/Action Plan to holistically address challenges relating to the reduction and elimination of Mercury;
Undertake a comprehensive inventory as a basis to develop and implement a more robust Mercury preventive programme which will include the identification and location, contaminated sites and extent of contamination, storage, handling and disposal to ensure that mercury related activities do not result in further damage to health and the environment;
Enhance national capacities with respect to human resources development and institutional strengthening, towards addressing concerns about the long-term effects of Mercury on both human health and the environment and also to ensure the effective domestication of the instrument that will be implementable at national level;
Sensitise the populace and policy makers on the hazards of mercury;
Develop and implement Mercury Release Minimisation Projects; and,
To coincide with the 2015 Earth Day observed on Wednesday, April 22, over 500 new city actions, showcasing a wealth of inspiring climate action, are being featured on a UN-hosted website, with the aim of building momentum for the upcoming global climate agreement in Paris.
Jakarta, Indonesia. One of the over 500 cities featured in the portal. Photo credit: tripsgate.com
Actions and targets, communicated by cities ranging from Amsterdam, Rio de Janeiro to Yokohama, range from increases in energy efficiency and deployment of renewables to green procurement and adaptation action.
The Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action (NAZCA) portal <http://climateaction.unfccc.int/> was launched last year at the UN climate change conference in Lima by Manuel Pulgar Vidal, President of COP 20.
It is demonstrating the sheer wealth of climate actions of key non-state actors including municipalities, regions and investors in order to inspire others to raise their ambition in support of the new universal climate agreement.
Cities produce around 70% of energy-related emissions and their activities to reduce these while building resilience are crucial for supporting governments as they publish and prepare their climate plans for the coming years and decades.
Many cities are also highly vulnerable to climate change, especially those on or in the vicinity of coastlines: while many have also seen the link between combating climate change and transforming the urban infrastructure and environment into a healthier and more economically dynamic place.
Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Climate Convention (UNFCCC), said: “Nations will come together to sign a universal agreement on climate change at the UN Climate Conference in Paris in December. By demonstrating action on NAZCA, cities can support and catalyse ever higher ambition by governments while signalling their determination to be part of the transformation towards a healthier, safer and more secure world. We are grateful for the collaboration with CDP, the carbon Climate Registry, the Compact of Mayors and others, and we look forward to showcasing more climate action from cities in the future.”
Cities Setting Science-Based Targets
Many of the cities who have submitted information to the portal are showing leadership by setting science-based targets to ensure that the world will stay below the internationally agreed limit of a maximum 2 degrees Celsius global average temperature rise.
According to the best available climate science, the world needs to peak global emissions in the next decade to successfully address climate change, triggering a deep de-carbonization of the global economy.
For example, Boston intends to reduce community-wide CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 over 1990 levels through building retrofits, renewable energy sources, on-site renewable energy installations and better waste and industrial pollution management.
Jakarta intends to reduce CO2 emissions from government operations by 30% from 2005 to 2030 through sustainable building standards and retrofits, energy efficient lighting, solar-powered streetlights, and landfill gas capture and power generation.
The city data presented on the NAZCA portal was reported to CDP’s cities programme <https://www.cdp.net/cities> – which forms part of CDP’s global environmental reporting system – and the carbon Climate Registry <http://carbonn.org/>.
CDP and the carbon Climate Registry are established, credible sources with a strong track record of reporting and tracking progress that the NAZCA portal draws data from. In particular, their regular reporting cycles will enable future progress on actions to be updated to NAZCA in the future.
Presentation of City Data Part of Wider Showcasing of Climate Actions from Non-State Actors
The cities being featured are part of an ongoing process to showcase climate actions from non-state actors. In the run-up to the UN climate change conference (COP 21) in Paris, information on climate actions from cities, businesses, investors and subnational regions will be continuously added to the NAZCA portal.
Many of these actions are happening in partnership with governments, organisations and international bodies, including the United Nations. Three such actions joining NAZCA today are the Compact of States and Regions, the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, and the Compact of Mayors.
Michael R. Bloomberg, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Cities and Climate Change, said, “Cities are helping to lead the way in addressing climate change. I congratulate the cities making their pledges public and transparent through the Compact of Mayors and NAZCA. It’s a crucial step that will help show nations that setting and achieving ambitious climate goals really is possible.”
The Portal is also showcasing several inspiring initiatives under the Lima-Paris Action Agenda. The agenda is designed to catalyse action on climate change by governments and non-state actors before 2020, when the new global agreement is to take effect, and after 2020. Many of these initiatives emerged from the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Summit last September <http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/about/>. These include the Low-Carbon Sustainable Rail Transport Challenge; Removing Commodity-Drive Deforestation from Supply Chains and the Global Energy Efficiency Accelerator Platform.
As preparations intensified worldwide for COP 21 in Paris, a new publication titled Guide to INDCs that provides practical guidance to Least Developed Countries (LDCs) on how to prepare their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been released. The guide is a joint publication of The Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) and Ricardo-AEA Ricardo-AEA.
Children collecting recyclable rubbish on the Buriganga River in Dhaka, capital city of Bangladesh, one of the world’s least developed countries. Photo credit: www.theguardian.com
The INDCs are essentially the building blocks for the 21st Conference of the Parties in Paris where the targets will hopefully be agreed and solidified. At this stage of the negotiations procedure other countries are expected to follow suit and submit their INDCs ahead of Paris 2015.
The UNFCCC has invited all Parties to communicate to the secretariat their INDCs “well in advance of COP 21” and it will prepare by 1 November 2015 a synthesis report on the “aggregate effect of the INDCs” that have been submitted before 1 October.
LDCs have contributed less to current global emissions than other countries; so the burden of cutting emissions will rest with major economies. However, to avoid dangerous levels of global warming, all countries will have to play a role, and the UN has communicated that LDC contributions towards a global agreement should “reflect their special circumstances”.
At present, there is no formal, standard template for INDCs. A statement by CDKN stated that the guide was initiated at the request of some LDCs for practical guidance, tailored to their needs. As such it seeks to address the broad range of approaches being considered by LDCs in preparing their INDCs, including the challenges they face and different national circumstances and levels of capacity, preparedness and ambition, the statement said.
“While many of the LDCs we work with are keen to show their commitment to a global ambitious deal on climate change, many are struggling to put together their national contribution as the current guidance is insufficiently detailed,” said Kiran Sura, CDKN’s Head of Advocacy Fund for Negotiations Support. “We hope this guidance and template, built from CDKN and Ricardo-AEAs experience of supporting LDCs over many years, will be a useful tool to help bridge this gap.”
The Guide to INDCs provides a practical example of how an INDC could be structured, with examples to illustrate a narrative and sources of background information.
CDKN makes it clear that the Guide to INDCs is not an official publication of the UNFCCC, nor is it endorsed by the UNFCCC, but stressed that it was developed in consultation with a range of stakeholders, including authors of existing INDC guidance, representatives from LDCs, and organisations working with CDKN to support INDC preparations.It draws from the INDCs which have already been submitted, and a range of referenced literature.
“This guide seeks to address the broad range of approaches being considered by LDCs in preparing their INDCs, including the challenges they face and different national circumstances and levels of capacity, preparedness and ambition. The guide responds to requests from LDC governments for suitable guidelines,” the CDKN statement said.
CDKN aims to help decision-makers in developing countries design and deliver climate compatible development while Ricardo-AEA is a global sustainability consultancy.
The Federal Executive Council (FEC) in 2014 approved the sum of N9.2 billion to procure some 750,000 clean cookstoves and 18,000 wonderbags, specifically to check the impact of smoke generated when cooking with wood on human health, as well as discourage poor environmental practices like tree felling and other forms of forest degradation in Nigeria. Environment writer, Etta Michael Bisong, evaluates the concept of this programme and its impact in resolving the nation’s huge environmental challenges.
The discovery that people die as a result of smoke produced from wood during cooking has increasingly challenged the need for cleaner energy technologies. Over 93,500 Nigerians, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO), die annually due to the impact of this orthodox energy source. And that is not the end of this sad story. The sustainable development deficit in the country is best reflected in the standard of livelihood of the average Nigerian, making efforts to reduce this inimical spread impossible. Between 1970s and now, Nigeria is estimated to have lost an unprecedented amount of its total forest reserve to practices associated with this obsolete cooking method. Like the sinister aftermath of climate change, this problem seems to have taken an endless dimension.
Representative of the Integral Renewable Energy, Clinton Biragbara, addressing stakeholders during the 2nd Stakeholders meeting organised by CODE on the Monitoring of the N9.2 billion National Clean Cookstoves Scheme, held recently in Abuja
In addition to this function, the clean cookstoves also reduces the quantity of wood required to produce cooking energy. Its benefits expand beyond mitigating the huge environmental challenges bedevilling Nigeria to unlocking the rigid unemployment market through various empowerment initiatives integrated into the project.
Climate change is real, although only known to those with information about these changes and their impacts on human livelihoods. The scientific terminologies largely use to encode as well as communicate these messages also contribute to the problem of slow understanding about this unseen but frightening disaster. This awareness gap clearly reflects the poor participation of citizens in the National Clean Cookstoves Scheme, as well as other related exercises such as the Great Green Wall project designed to mitigate the impact of climate change on socio-economic growth of the nation. It’s also responsible for the diverse opinions and public outcry that clouded the initiative immediately the government unveiled the plan.
Since its approval in November last year, little or almost nothing has been done on the part of government either to educate the citizens or beneficiaries about this programme. Rather than ensuring that this exercise is genuinely executed, the government has increasingly awash the vulnerable public with lots of bureaucracies and usual bottlenecks that make simple processes difficult and worse still most times impossible. Ordinarily, it would have been expected that considering the value of this exercise and its potentials in mitigating the poor environmental practices that motivate climate change impacts on human livelihood and social growth, more should have been done mostly in the area of sensitising the people on the benefits of this programme and the need for its adoption to ensure sustainability in the process.
The disbandment of a transparency and accountability committee constituting members from the media, civil society organisations (CSOs) and other key stakeholders in the sector by the Federal Ministry of Environment quickly reinforces the government ingenuity to properly execute this programme. The removal of the Rural Women Energy Security (RUWES) from the implementation process of this scheme for non-convincing reasons, and the failure to involve actors such as the Nigerian Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, Ministry of Women Affairs as well as the National Orientation Agency further alludes to this fact. The omission of these critical partners most of which are already engaging in the manufacturing, procuring and distribution of these products clearly signifies the unseen narratives of the entire concept of the clean energy enterprise.
This situation, according to the Chief Executive of Connected Development (CODE), Hamzat Lawal, is unnecessary and could as well have been avoided only if the government had consulted widely before embarking on this robust exercise.
Lawal, who made the statement at the second stakeholders meeting on the Monitoring of the N9.2 billion clean cookstoves programme organised by CODE and the Heinrich Boell Foundation in Abuja, hinted that he visited the Environment Ministry countless times yet never received any positive feedback. Not even the letter his organisation wrote under the cover of the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) yielded results, as the Director of Finance was conservative with information about the project implementation simply on the basis that no such letter has gotten to or instructed him to release such information.
Participants at the workshop expressed concern about the haphazard nature with which the project is handled. This project as against its original plan has continued to suffer inconsistencies both in the release of the funds meant for implementation to the distribution of the anticipated products to the beneficiaries. Other issues that they believe should be addressed have to do with differentiating between who gets the clean cookstoves for free, as well as the uncertainty about the actual amount of money released to mobilise Integral Renewable Energy (IRE), the contractor handling the project. These worrisome situations have raised two critical questions – market sustainability of the clean cookstoves and government’s readiness to be transparent in the delivery of these products.
Although, at the workshop it was clarified that the distribution of the stoves to the end users was no longer going to be carried out as earlier projected by the wives of states governors or their colleagues at local government level due to various reasons raised at the meeting, mostly the issue of transparency. Religious bodies and community-based women NGOs are now expected to facilitate the exercise after the government succumbed to lots of pressure from both stakeholders and other rights groups in the country.
On the actual funds released so far, a representative of IRE, Clinton Biragbara, disclosed that his organisation had only received 15% of the total project money which is estimated at about N1.3 billion. This revelation contradicts an earlier public perception that N5 billion of the total money had been released to mobilise the contractor. Although, the hint about the release of the N5 billion the contractor is coming from a reliable but authorised source in the government. These contractions about the actual figure to believe have really added to earlier apprehensions raised by stakeholders about the successful implementation of this project.
Against this background, the stakeholders called on the Ministry of Environment, whose representative was absent at the meeting, to make public the utilisation of the clean cookstoves funds as it is public money and government is meant to ensure available information on how its utilised. They also demanded that the governments consult widely for the implementation of the National Clean Cookstove Scheme and institutionalise a publicly known mechanism for dissemination of the cookstoves, while making transparent the identities of beneficiaries of the stoves.
Currently, only three countries are producing shale gas through hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on a commercial scale: the United States, Canada, and China. But as several other countries undertake shale resource exploration efforts, a key question remains: What are the impacts of shale gas mining on local economies and the environment? In the Worldwatch Institute’s latest Vital Sign, Research Fellow Christoph von Friedeburg concludes that any strong national reliance on shale gas (domestic or foreign) could have undesirable consequences in both the near and long term.
Worldwide, an estimated 7,299 trillion cubic feet of shale gas is considered “technically recoverable.” However, continued exploration could lead to substantial revisions of deposits that are not merely technically, but also economically recoverable.
Discussions about fracking are ongoing in several European countries, including Germany, the United Kingdom, and Bulgaria. But recoverable quantities of shale gas across the region remain uncertain, and many supplies are located deep underground, some in densely populated areas. Additional factors inhibiting the development of Europe’s shale gas resources include disputes about the ownership of mineral rights, and substantial environmental and safety concerns.
The U.K. government appears to be in favour of shale gas development. However, the single shale well that has been fracked in the country so far, in 2011, caused two earth tremors, leading to a temporary ban on fracking that was in effect until 2012. Since then, a handful of exploration wells have been drilled, but none have been fracked so far. In Romania, expectations for the country’s shale gas future have soured because of lower and less-profitable projections of available reserves, growing public opposition to fracking, and lower oil prices, which have rendered natural gas less economically viable.
China has invested more than $1 billion in shale gas exploration so far. But most of the country’s deposits are located in hard-to-access mountainous areas, either at great depths or too far from the considerable water resources required for the fracking process. This makes drilling wells, as well as establishing the needed infrastructure, such as roads and pipelines, more challenging and expensive.
The United States is by far the dominant producer of shale gas, producing a record 32.9 billion cubic feet per day in 2014. Proponents of fracking have touted shale gas development as a boon for local job creation. However, most of the associated jobs are temporary, and many are filled by out-of-area workers whose short-lived influx provides only passing benefit to local economies. The development of clean, renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, has been shown in many cases to be more successful in creating employment.
The costs of damages to local roads from the heavy-truck fleets needed for well construction and wastewater transport amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. Air pollution emissions from vehicles and from well-pad diesel generators can harm human health. And the toxic wastewater that flows out from the wells after the fracking fluid is pumped underground-containing a mixture of chemicals, water, and sand-is often inadequately treated, presenting a danger to soils and aquifers. Such impacts need to be assessed closely within the United States as well as in other countries that are considering shale gas development.
The shift in the United States from coal to natural gas for power generation has helped to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions in the short term. But the long-term, global benefit of this reduction is dubious, as fracking releases large quantities of methane-a more potent contributor to atmospheric warming than carbon dioxide-and because growing amounts of U.S. coal have found their way to export markets. Furthermore, optimistic projections of future U.S. shale gas production have been called into question.
Nigeria’s dream of joining the league of countries using cutting edge technology to boost economic development appears to have come true following the signing into law on Saturday, April 18, 2015 the National Biosafety Agency Bill by President Goodluck Jonathan.
Goodluck Jonathan, President of Nigeria
Observers have described the development as a milestone in the domestication of modern biotechnology in the country, saying that it will create more employment, boost food production and improve the prospects of farming.
Prof. Lucy Ogbadu, Director-General/CEO, National Biotechnology Development Agency, in a media statement described the National Biosafety Act as crucial in the management of modern biotechnology in the country.
She said: “Modern biotechnology has been identified as an important tool that can help countries to achieve food sufficiency/food security, industrial growth, health improvement and environmental sustainability while the Biosafety Act will give the legal framework to check the activities of modern biotechnology locally as well as imported GM crops into the country as well as providing avenue to engage Nigerian scientists/experts from different fields to identify and pursue solutions to our local challenges.
“The Biosafety Law also recognises the complex issues to be addressed by central authorities in the judicious application of modern biotechnology; it bases the deliberate release of GMO on Advance Informed Agreement (AIA).”
According to her, the issue of Biosafety Regulation in Africa is rapidly gaining momentum as more African Countries are embracing GMOs. Republic of South Africa, Burkina Faso, Ghana and Egypt already have biosafety laws and are currently growing and consuming GM crops. Kenya, Togo, Tanzania and Mali also have Biosafety laws.
“The African Union has developed a model biosafety law to assist member states develop their Biosafety Laws. However, to further strengthen Biosafety system in Africa, the AU-NEPAD-African Biosafety Network of Expertise project has been put in place to develop the capacity of member states in biotechnology and Biosafety. The ECOWAS Commission is also currently developing a common Biosafety Regulation in line with National Biosafety laws/Regulations for the sub-region,” she added .
Rose Gidado, Assistant Director, National Biotechnology development Agency/OFAB Nigeria Chapter Coordinator, submitted that Nigeria can without delay commercialise Bt-cotton, Bt-maize, Herbicide Tolerant (HT)-soya beans, which are already in South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt.
“This can lead to increased yield productivity to ensure food security and industrial growth especially in the ailing Textile Industries. It will also promote the quantity and quality of cotton that the Nigeria can export to other international countries,” she stated.
Gidado added: “The passage of this law will also ensure the much desired in-flux of foreign direct investment from notable world leading companies in Biotechnology thereby improving gross domestic product growth rate and increase job creation.
“The law will promote national security through the application of DNA finger printing for crime detection, paternity testing and identification. It will also promote active commercialisation of the research and development projects in our various universities and research institutes hence improves our economy as well as support the country to become one of the leaders in Biotechnology, particularly in Africa.”
Prof Ogbadu said: “At this juncture I would like to thank and appreciate very greatly, the National Assembly Members for the timely passage of the Bill and President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, for his quick assent. I have not also forgotten our strength and pillars of support: the Ministers of Science and Technology, Agriculture and Rural Development, as well as Environment (Dr Abdu Bulama, Dr Akinwumi Adesina and Mrs L.L. Malam respectively). We would ever remain grateful to you for this great and historical milestone achieved.
“Also on record, are our abled, tenacious and committed stakeholders: African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), United States Agency for International Department (USAID), United States Department for Agriculture (USDA), Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS), Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD), Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria (ARCN), Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR), Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEnv), National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI), National Agricultural Seed Council of Nigeria (NASCN), National Cereals Research Institute (NCRI), International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), Michigan State University (MSU), African Biosafety Network of Expertise (AU-NEPAD ABNE), All Farmers Association of Nigeria (AFAN), National Cotton Association of Nigeria (NACOTAN), Cotton Ginnery Association of Nigeria (CGAN), Niger State Government, Gombe State Government, Imo State Government, Katsina State Government, Universities, Biotechnology Society of Nigeria (BSN), Genetic Society of Nigeria (GSN), Nigerian Society of Microbiologists (NSM), Nigerian Institute of Food Science and Technology (NIFST), Nigerian Institute for Oil Research (NIFOR) and Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria (CRIN), who guided us all the way through in driving this process to its logical conclusion.
“You stood strongly behind and beside us even when things became tough and hopeless, when there seemed to ne no way, you never gave up. Keeping hope alive is what has brought us this success. God will surely take us to the Promise Land!”
Climate change, which refers to any long-term trends in climate over many years or decades, around which climate variability may be evident year on year, is one of the greatest socio-economic and ecological challenges facing us today. By its definition, a single warmer or cooler year on its own is not sufficient evidence to assert that climate is changing, but systematic changes in average conditions over many years do provide evidence of a changing climate. Climate change continues to be discussed as the overarching issue this generation and those to follow must address.
Prof. Emmanuel Olukayode Oladipo
The general consensus is that it is undermining development and increasing the burdens on the poorest people in the world, who are often hardest hit by weather catastrophes, desertification, and rising sea levels, among others. In general it is regarded as capable of having serious devastating effects on the three dimensions or pillars of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. The scientific basis of climate change may be known to experts and professionals, but society is increasingly seeking information about the nature of the evidence and what can be done in response to a changing climate. This article provides some of that much-needed simplified information on the science of climate change.
In its natural state, the Earth’s climate system is a dynamic system, always in transformation from one state to another, sometimes smoothly and sometimes turbulently. Thus, looking back to the Earth’s history, it is not surprising that its climate system has always changed. In general, global temperatures have been cycling or alternating between geological intervals of warmer global average temperature known as Interglacial Periods, and periods of colder global average temperature, known as Glacial Periods. In general, long glacial periods are therefore separated by more temperate but shorter interglacials. These changes are driven by both external influences and dynamics internal to the Earth system. Key external influences include fluctuations in the amount of energy emitted by the Sun, and changes in the Earth’s orbit and axial tilt that affect the intensity and distribution of the Sun’s energy across the Earth. Internal influences on climate include changes in the surface reflectivity due to the presence or absence of ice, changes in atmospheric composition of greenhouse gases, variations in ocean currents, drifting continents, the cooling effect of volcanic dust, and other geological processes.
If climate has always varied in the past, why are we so concerned about the recent warming? The concern is that modern climate is changing far more quickly than in the geological past. In addition, scientific evidences are indicating that recent climate changes cannot be explained by natural causes alone. In general, research indicates that while climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in atmospheric gas concentrations, natural causes are very unlikely to explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. There is no record of temperatures within human history ever having increased as rapidly as they have over the past 100 years. Rather, human activities can very likely explain most of that warming, especially because of the way we have been affecting and changing the amount of the gases in the earth’s atmosphere (a thin layer of air that envelops the Earth).
The Sun, which powers the Earth’s climate system, radiates energy at very short wavelengths. About 33% the solar energy that reaches the top of earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining 67% is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths (thermal radiation). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to earth.
Gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide and water vapour, are essential to retain heat and keep the planet warm enough to sustain life – hence the reference to them as greenhouse gases. They absorb the radiation released by the Earth’s surface and then radiate heat in all directions, including back towards the ground – adding to the heat the ground receives from the Sun. This is the so called greenhouse effect, which is analogous to the glass walls in a greenhouse which reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. The Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature at earth’s surface would be more than 30oC cooler than it is now, and life as we know it would not be possible. Thus, earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible.
If the greenhouse effect is essential for our living, so why the current concern about greenhouse effect-induced warming and what makes the climate change we are now experiencing different? There is now strong evidence that recent rapid climate changes are driven largely by a range of human activities. Greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, clearing forests, cement manufacture, and by many other industrial and agricultural activities, thereby increasing the amount of radiation trapped near the Earth’s surface and driving accelerated warming. Because of this, the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are higher today than they have been over the last half-million years or longer. Thus, human activities have greatly intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming. This process, called the enhanced greenhouse effect, is caused by a forced release of greenhouse gases from their terrestrial store into the atmosphere that has no precedent in history. The net effect could throw the climate system into a tumultuous state of extreme weather and climatic conditions.
To further understand the situation, we can look at it with a simple analogy, considering salt and human health. A small amount of salt is essential for human life, and slightly more salt in our diet often makes food tastier. However, too much salt can be harmful to our health. In a similar way, greenhouse gases are essential for our planet; the planet may be able to deal with slightly increased levels of such gases, but too much will affect the health of the whole planet.
Since the beginning of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities has resulted in the increase of CO2 from 280 parts per million (ppm) to about 390 ppm today, with an annual growth rate of 1.5 to 2.0 ppm. This build-up of GHGs threatens to set the earth inexorably on the path to an unpredictably different climate, particularly in terms of temperature and precipitation changes.
Despite global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) atmospheric concentrations that have been largely blamed for global warming induced changes in the climate, the recent Greenhouse Gas Bulletin released by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) indicated that the atmospheric concentrations of the GHGs are increasing. The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) reached 390.9 parts per million in 2011, or 140% of the pre-industrial level. Atmospheric methane also reached a new high of about 1813 parts per billion in 2011, or 259% of the pre-industrial level. Atmospheric nitrous oxide in 2011 was about 324.2 parts per billion, or 120% of the pre-industrial level. Further, radiative forcing by long-lived GHGs increased by 30% from 1990-2011, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Annual Greenhouse Gas Index. Carbon dioxide accounts for about 80% of this increase.
Anthropogenic-induced global warming and associated changes in climate are now a reality. The global warming is a reality in the light of current developments of temperatures observed since the 19th century. The observed temperatures show a general upward trend across the globe. The average surface temperature has risen by 0.6OC+ or – 0.2OC since 1860. The observations indicate that the 20th century probably experienced the greatest warming of all ages since 1 000 years in the Northern hemisphere. The decades 1990 and 2000 were the warmest of the 20th century. The years 1998, 2005, 2003 and 2002 were the warmest on record since 1861.
Since 1976, the rise in temperature has been sharp, reaching 0.18OC per decade. The linear trend of warming over the last 50 years, from 1956 to 2005 (0.13OC per decade) is almost twice that of 100 years, from 1906 to 2005 (IPCC, 2007). According to the recent Bulletin of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the year 2013 was among the top ten warmest years since modern records began in 1850. It tied with 2007 as the sixth warmest year, with a global land and ocean surface temperature that was 0.50OC (0.90OF) above the 1961–1990 average and 0.03OC (0.05OF) higher than the most recent 2001–2010 decadal average.
Human-amplified global warming and the associated increases in global temperatures are changing fundamental climate processes. Some of those changes may be beneficial in some areas, but it is expected that most will cause more harm than good. Oceans are reportedly becoming more acidic as a result of the carbon dioxide uptake, with serious potential repercussions for coral reefs and the underwater food chain. All these point to the fact that the world may continue to face climate change-induced decrease in food security, less predictable availability of fresh water, and adverse health effects with increasing concentrations of GHGs, as predicted in many scientific models.
The past, present and future climate change scenarios in Nigeria will be discussed in the next article.
By Prof. Emmanuel Oladipo (Climate Change Specialist and Adjunct Professor,Department of Geography, University of Lagos, Nigeria. olukayode_oladipo@yahoo.co.uk)
The importance of communication and awareness are entrenched in the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework on Climate Change) system – Article 6 of the Convention which talked about public awareness while protocol Article10 emphasised training, public awareness and access to information on climate change.
Prince Lekan Fadina
This piece looks at the impact of communication and how the public can be carried along through public awareness and engaging communicators to be responsive to the challenges and opportunities in climate change.
At a media conference, former head of the UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer, in June 2010, said: “When l took on this job the issue of climate change was hardly being reported in developing countries at all and if it was being reported it must be an issue in which the West is interested but which is not of particular concern to the South.”
He went further to say: “I think that, that has fundamentally changed. I think that the media has played a modest role in creating awareness and deepened attention in the South.”
COP organisers have also provided opportunity for media and communication organisations and individuals for participation at different activities during the COPs. There are also various institutions and organisations such as EnviroNews Nigeria, IISD and others that produce and provide reporting services, bulletins, handbills and newsletters on a continuous basis to cover various activities before, during and after the COP and other UN activities. They provide information, create awareness, and make available research materials for governments, the academia, business, non-governmental organisations, students and all segments of the society. There are also others who play critical roles in ensuring the spreading of knowledge and also influence the way things are done.
There are organisations who support and sponsor journalists from developing countries for training and to attend conferences. The objective is for them to be more knowledgeable to report the climate change negotiations, side events and, beyond that, to create awareness and enhance public knowledge.
We all have the responsibility to ensure that effective and purpose-driven messages about climate change and COP sessions are put into the public space in a simple language that can ensure ownership, shared vision “buy-in.” Yvo de Boer at the press conference mentioned above noted “that the dominant Western media rarely tells such stories from the perspectives of developing nations whose journalists can rarely afford to travel to major meetings.”
We are aware that some institutions like the Federal Ministry of Environment, its agencies, other ministries, UNDP and a host of others have at one time or the other supported, sponsored, briefed and also engaged journalists and others before, during and after COP meetings. We thank them for the support.
There are tool kits for journalists worldwide on how to report on climate change and sustainable development. The journalists need to have access to the information and the man in charge of information because having the right information at the appropriate time means a lot and the society is the ultimate beneficiary. In short, access to information is an important element in addressing climate change and the attendant issues.
We believe that, as communicators, we have a duty to use the information at our disposal to the overall interest of the greater number of people and also to educate, mobilise, inform, create awareness and ensure that we carry people along as we go through the road to Paris. It is imperative that we have a lot of responsibility to carry and we must live up because we must set the pace and the agenda that will ensure the overall interest of our nation.
Climate change is real and affects all aspects of our lives. We have a duty to put it at the centre of public discourse especially now that the President-elect has emphasised climate diplomacy as one of the issues this administration will address. It is important that we embark on a high level advocacy to sustain it at the centre of public discuss.
The world is in the thick of discussion on climate agreement with world leaders signing an agreement in December. We cannot leave the discussion to a few people because it is an issue that all of us must be involved. In the next few days the Editor of the Guardian of London will be bowing out after 25 years to devote more time to climate change and the attendant issues. There are others around the world that see the climate matters as more than discussion because it is now a development issue. The amount of money available for renewable energy globally is huge and there are others. The recent French support to Africa is substantial and Nigeria must benefit from it.
In a presentation, the Climate Leadership Conference, Edward Maibach of George Mason University Centre for Climate Change Communication, USA in his paper titled: “Communicating Climate Change and the case for Action” talked on the need for quality information management and posed the need to answer four key questions:
What does the public think of climate change?
Who are they listening to?
Who do they expect to take action?
What do they want to see done?
We must have passion and determination for finding great stories and reporting them in ways that are relevant to our people. Climate change is a hard nut which we must crack. We must all work together to help millions of Nigerians about climate issues and what they mean to us and our lives.
We also must let the developed countries know that we need finance to address the challenges and we need the right technology to tap the opportunities and we need the right capacity building mechanism to train our people towards the path of low carbon economy and move towards green homes, green banking and green way of life.
We all have a common objective which is to improve the lot of our people. We are all stakeholders in the Nigeria project.
By Prince Lekan Fadina (Executive Director, Centre for Investment, Sustainable Development, Management and Environment (CISME). (He is a member of the Nigeria Negotiation Team, Africa Group of Negotiators and member, AGN Finance Co-ordination Committee). Website: www.cismenigeria.com. Email: cismevision@gmail.com. Twitter: @cismevision
The Ivorian Ministry of Economic Infrastructure has awarded a contract valued at about 1.65 million euro ($1.76 million) to a consortium led by the firm of Louis Berger. The construction supervision contract is being financed through the French Agency for Development’s debt relief and development programme for Côte d’Ivoire.
The consortium will supervise the construction of a 45 kilometre (28 miles) road between Ferkessédougou, the second largest town in northern Côte d’Ivoire, and Ouangolodougou, a northern town near the country’s border with Burkina Faso. Work also will include the rehabilitation of various road crossings.
“This road, when complete, will help local Ivorian producers transport their products to market faster and under better conditions,” said Jean-Pierre Dupacq, head of Louis Berger’s operations in Africa. “The road also will generate additional regional trade and economic benefits because it links the Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso and Mali.”
In a related development, the African Finance Corporation (AFC) is partnering with the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the Ivorian government to invest N52.65 billion (270 million euro) in financing the Henri Konan Bedie (HKB) Bridge, which is the third in the city of Abidjan.
The others are the Felix Houphouet-Boigny Bridge and Charles de Gaulle Bridge and, passing over the Ebire Lagoon, link the districts of Reviera and Marcory.
However, the new toll bridge is expected to reduce transportation time and costs by easing congestion over the existing two (non-tolled) bridges crossing the lagoon within the city.
Key project sponsor – Bouygues Group of France – is building the bridge under a turnkey fixed price arrangement, while the Government of Ivory Coast is providing a 30-year concession with a strong support.
Louis Berger has more than 50 years of experience in Africa and 20 years of experience working in the Côte d’Ivoire, where the firm has implemented nearly 15 projects covering a broad range of professional services in the agriculture and transportation sectors.
If you keep going in the same direction, you will inevitably end up at where you are going – Proverb
Nnimmo Bassey
The climate paradox is that while governments agree that it is an imminent crisis, they are unwilling to act in a manner that shows that they assimilate this truth. Indeed, climate negotiations have remained largely a political exercise that commits large amounts of money to access climate science and yet pays scant attention to it. This is what we learn from the tonnes of information generated by the IPCC compared to the decisions that come out from the (Conference of Parties) COPs.
Climate Intentions
We note particularly that by the subversive decision of the 2009 COP at Copenhagen the world stopped talking of binding commitment to emissions reduction by nations and rather stepped on to the path of voluntary actions. The world also slashed ambition on climate finance and was forced to comply with a $100 billion per year climate fund a year by 2020. What happens before 2020 was left hanging.
Another degenerate milestone was reached at the Conference of Parties five years later on at Lima, Peru. The Lima Call for Climate Action sought to actualise the intent of the so-called Copenhagen Accord. Rather than demanding binding emissions cut that would add up to meet targets indicated by science, nations are expected to toe the path of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). As the name suggests, nations are to suggest what they intend to (not what they must) do as their contributions to tackle the menace of climate change.
As at mid-April 2015, about 34 countries have so far submitted their INDCs to the UNFCCC. By the time of COP 21 in Paris, it is expected that about 90% of the nations of the world would have submitted their INDCs and that, with no incentive and no compulsion to do what will meaningfully add up to tackle the menace of climate change, their cumulative intended contributions would in no way be anything necessary to cut emissions at levels that would produce a less than 2 degrees Celsius temperature increase above pre-industrial levels. With a 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise Africa and some other parts of the world would already be literally on fire.
We should also note at this juncture that whatever is agreed to at Paris would only come into effect by 2020 as previously set by the Copenhagen Accord. This suits political temperaments of leaders that are content to shift responsibility to take action to future administrations while they do nothing at the present. The further away the dates for ambitious actions are, the easier it is for political leaders to agree to such plans. The nearer the implementation of these targets is, the more improbable it is to expect enthusiastic support from political leaders.
Not everything in the Lima outcome document pointed at a lack of ambition. The outcome retained the concepts of common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities (CBDR) as well as openings for gender action and another on loss and damage. While the CBDR speaks strongly to justice, fairness and equity, it is possible that arguments for payment of ecological and climate debt could be brought up under the loss and damage radar. This holds particular possibilities for support to Small Island states and other nations that have already been battered (and are still being battered) by freak weather events.
Fossils Underground
One thing that the COPs have consistently refused to acknowledge, as they should, is the central role played by human’s dependence on fossil fuels for energy and power generation. The World Bank and the International Energy Agency as well as the IPCC have acknowledged that substantial percentage of known reserves of fossil fuels must not be burned, that is, they must be left underground if catastrophic temperature increase is to be avoided. This reality which Oilwatch has been demanding for over 15 years now makes it urgent for nations to close their fossil shops and for corporations to shift their attention to clean energy and other forms of production. Is that what we see? No.
Rather than work on urgent transition from fossil fuels, nations and corporations are embarking on more extreme and reckless modes of exploration and extraction of fossil fuels, including fracking and deep seas drilling. Rather than shifting to safer and cleaner energy forms, many countries, including many on the African continent, are celebrating new oil and gas finds. They are delirious with joy and getting set to enjoy the pyrrhic bounties that the sector promises. While anti-fracking movements denounce moves towards the reprehensible mode of extraction in Europe we hear of the announcement of massive oil find at a location near Gatwick airport in the United Kingdom. When shall we learn?
Without the new finds, it was already estimated that the value of fossils to be left underground topped $22 trillion. The fact that such fossils to be left underground are often referred to as stranded resources suggests that corporations and governments will don the saviour toga to rescue the resources from being stranded!
Finance for Action
As already mentioned, the COPs hope that by 2020 there would be $100 billion a year in the kitty for climate finance. A Green Climate Fund (GCF) has been set up. The means of raising that money – from private or public sources was not stipulated – and this has led to various interpretations including counting development aid as climate finance. As we write this in mid-April 2015 only $10.2 billion is in that account.
Raising climate finance should not be such a hard thing if politicians especially from rich nations agree to do the right thing. For one, the huge expenditure on warfare amount to over a trillion dollars a year. 10% of the amount of money wasted on wars and other acts of aggression would already exceed the financial target for the GCF. Secondly, equity, fairness and justice demands that accumulated climate debt be paid. This would meet the huge financial demands been saddled on nations that neither contribute significantly to climate change nor are in a position to fund adaptation measures.
False Solutions
If the UNFCCC is serious about carbon offset mechanisms, countries that leave fossils in the ground should be accorded carbon credits to the value of the fossils locked underground. This means that the Ogoni people should be paid handsomely for keeping millions of tonnes of carbon underground since they expelled Shell from their territory in 1993. This would also mean that Ecuador would not have to desecrate Yasuni because of the quest for cash at the expense of lives and a rich biodiversity. This means that countries like Kenya would not have to open up the protected Lake Turkana area for oil extraction and that Mozambique would defend its rich biodiversity rather than celebrate gas finds on its territory. The truth is that leaving fossils underground is more valuable than cash as a liveable planet offers opportunities that money cannot provide. If the whole carbon trade is not a fabricated lie the logic should be extended to fossils left underground.
The urgency of the climate crisis demands that the world decarbonises urgently. We cannot allow politicians to intentionally refuse to act now and shift responsibility for action to generations yet unborn. No. We must not allow that.
This is why we reject all false solutions that lock in pollution and snuffs life out of our peoples. False solutions such as agro-fuels and REDD have already had serious negative impacts on our peoples. Geo-engineering experiments have failed spectacularly, and even if they were to succeed, all scenarios reviewed by scientists and by the ETC Group show that Africa would suffer severe negative impacts from such moves. As one highly regarded physicist told a recent meeting, “geo-engineering experiments have shown that it is totally useless.” It is a silver bullet that permits polluters to keep polluting and cannot deliver on its promise to suck released carbon from the atmosphere.
Simple Solutions
Complex problems can be solved with simple solutions. The climate crisis can be tackled by working with nature and not against her. We need to resolve to respect the rights of Mother Earth to maintain her natural cycles without human disruptions. We have to halt activities that have known negative impacts, including dependence on industrial agriculture and its litany of artificial and chemical inputs. We have to say yes to life and no to mining. It may be inconveniencing, but the pleasures and so-called easy life of today cannot justify a knowing condemnation of the planet and peoples to unacceptable future. We must all sand up, speak and ac against climate crimes.
Climate action can only appear to be expensive if we continue to refuse to discern that the cost of inaction is far higher and intolerable. Inaction is attractive when polluters do not care about the impacted and refuse to accept the fact that ultimately everyone on planet Earth is vulnerable.
Mass movements can press this message at local and national levels. And then all must coalesce in the global space to demand the urgent halting of intentional climate crimes and inaction.
By Nnimmo Bassey (Director, Health of Mother Earth Foundation – HOMEF)
