The world’s leaders this week converged on the General Assembly Hall of the United Nations headquarters at the Manhattan, New York for the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly, UNGA74. Climate change that hitherto appeared latent became vociferous with youths led by Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg became potentates causing about four million people around the world to take part in the biggest demonstration ever in history over global warming last week Friday.
The General Assembly session which ended yesterday was heralded by a special Climate Action summit on Monday September 23. The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres who set the tone for the global confabbing told leaders to present concrete and transformative plans to halt rising global temperatures to achieve carbon neutrality and cut carbon emissions by 45 percent.
California’s deadliest wildfire finally tamed(Opens in a new browser tab)
Guterres however expressed his predicaments to reporters that his calling world leaders for a swift transition away from coal do not mean it will happen.
The scenario at the UNGA74 was similar to the 24th triennial World Energy Congress in Abu Dhabi the United Arab Emirates a fortnight ago with global energy leaders exploring new energy futures, innovation areas and new strategies for energy redefinition through innovations. As global warming stares us in the face the political world is bound to make criticality analyses for appropriate choices and adequate policies regarding the orchestrated clean energy for a green environment.
UNICEF provides N8bn support to Adamawa(Opens in a new browser tab)
The Secretary General of World Energy Council, organizers of the World Energy Congress, Dr. Christophe Frei message was that with today’s era of energy abundance, clean and renewable energy should flow, so that all nations and peoples and the earth will flourish, with no one left behind. Experts believe that global leaders must make choices that would secure energy future and also secure the environment. It is like having our cake and eating it. What are the costs of clean energy to the economies of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) producers that may be forced to abandon them for renewable energy?
Experts have sounded notes of warning that issues of energy transitions require an understanding of the various implications. The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy involves trade-offs between energy security, energy affordability, and environmental impact mitigation.
These trade-offs are what we give up compared to what we gain. In the end are they what we can all live with? The choice from available options may well be unpleasant. And that is the energy trilemma. World decision-makers have been provided with the necessary evidence base and the high-level dialogue platform for energy policies to address the energy trilemma. Perhaps it was time leaders are subjected to thematic apperception tests with presumptions of prejudices on the energy matter. President Donald Trump’s concern is his “America First Energy Policy.”
He recognized that domestic oil and gas industry employs about 10 million Americans and he is to explore the estimated US$50 trillion in untapped shale, oil and natural gas reserves to dominate global oil and maintain American energy superpower status. In developing countries importance is attached to options that increase access to affordable energy, reliable supply of energy for growth, and provide climate and environment benefits than those that have climate benefits alone. Fossil fuels are vital to the economies of producer nations like Nigeria that they hold tenaciously as instruments of global politics and strategy.
Nations were dragged in Paris 2015 COP 21 to make commitments on emission cuts. But no nation has been held accountable for contributing to global warming. Coal is the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel and still the main source of energy for producing electricity in the more developed countries. China is the world’s coal juggernaut. The top three greenhouse gas emitters: China, the European Union and the United States contribute more than half of total global emissions, while the bottom 100 countries including Nigeria only account for 3.5 percent.
Collectively, the top 10 emitters China, United States, India, Russia, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Iran, Canada and Saudi Arabia account for nearly three-quarters of global emissions. The world cannot successfully tackle the climate change challenge without significant action from these countries. And where might is right all nations must fall in whether they contribute to carbon emission or not. President Buhari has signed and ratified the 2015 Paris Agreement in line with Nigeria’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, INDCs. With the ratification, Nigeria has to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by working towards ending gas flaring by 2030, working towards Off-grid solar photovoltaic, PV of 13GW, use of efficient gas generators, 2 percent per year energy efficiency (30 percent by 2030), and transport shift to mass transit among others.
HIV/AIDS: C’River pledges adherence to WHO‘s recommendations to improve healthcare(Opens in a new browser tab)
Buhari’s points in 2015 are germane when he advocated a prioritization of the means of implementing the INDCs, in terms of finance, technology and capacity building, especially in supporting developing countries, including those in Africa. To address climate change vulnerabilities, less developed countries that rely on fossil fuels to fund their budgets should receive institutional capacity support for sustainable development.
The widely canvassed renewable energy sources mitigate emissions and may not stir up geopolitical tensions like fossil fuels. But the challenge is technology import that would make fossil fuels dependent nations to be wholly importing dependent for renewable energies. Where do we go from here?
Vanguard