The climate compensation discourse alive @ COP27 

At the 27th session of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC/COP27) at Sharm El Sheikh in Egypt, which started on Sunday the 6th of November, and is expected to end on Friday the 18th of November 2022, Antonio Guterres, the UN secretary-general, called for “action”! From a purely critical observation, COP27 comes exactly 30 years after the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (an international environmental treaty) was negotiated and adopted in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992 (known as the “Rio Convention”). This summit also clocks exactly seven years since the “Paris Agreement” took place at COP21. It is therefore interesting to note at this point in time that a group of European cities (including Paris and Barcelona) and NGOs have called on Brussels to set a deadline of 2027 to end sale of carbon emitting buses in Europe. In a similar vein, the Spain solar panels are already being preferred by households for clean energy in cutting down dependency on the global market. These developments not only support the UN chief’s “opening charge” for “action” but, have visibly provided a clear proof that the annual events/global gatherings of world leaders, where landmark decisions had been made in the past (including but, not limited to the Rio Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, or the Paris Agreement)  have not been in vain.

The COP27 summit’s formal agenda has finally included “Loss and damage” as a key issue enlisted among the items on the agenda, to put paid to the lingering objections on compensation that will enhance the financial protection being demanded by developing nations. Ironically, this resistance and reluctance by industrialised nations has lasted for 30 years. These same industrialised nations (among others), the likes of the United States of America and the European Union, are the ones responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) that heat up planet earth; having emitted half of all heat-trapping gases since 1850. This compensatory financial progress made thus far at COP27, to minimise and ward off loss and damage is actually funds due to the most vulnerable countries that heavily suffer the destructive impact and burden of the climate disasters (ranging from severe drought, storms and flooding) that cannot be avoided either by mitigation or adaptation. This compensation or payment is the financial support towards the cost of “loss and damage” incurred which, of course, is not at all charity funds because the affected poor countries significantly lose a lot of wealth from their agribusinesses (that range from cash crops in their farm lands, to huge losses on livestock). These affected poorer countries have since been adjudged as the least responsible for the global predicament; and this development has been applauded as good tiding and a climate justice.

The energy transition issue currently being pursued globally to mitigate global warming (climate change) appears to be slowing down and losing steam in the Western bloc due to the impact of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. This observation looks close to reality because the sudden increase in prices of food and energy has worsened the rate of inflation on those two products, which has resulted from uncertainty that surrounds secured sources of food and energy supplies. The development has actually sparked off fresh projects that are targeted at reducing future reliance on Russian gas. This has also navigated further with renewed aggressive demand towards sourcing fossil fuel elsewhere, in order to justify such urgent responses to war-induced shortages, by rekindling fossil energy consumption, in this critical situation, for cooking and heating by some European nations, especially during this winter season. This, honestly, is in danger of ruining the already adopted net-zero emission policy and programme towards protecting the planet for the future generations that are already being pursued on target. Caution is, however, being sued for very urgent action, as being hammered on by the UN chief at the ongoing COP27! But this approach could only be feasible on the condition that a nascent decarbonization technique could be innovated, to be nullifying, by taking out freshly generated greenhouse gas/carbon from further emissions into the environment, within a controllable limit of the 1.5℃ ceiling.

At this point in time Nigeria needs to aggressively make a strong and valid case, under the enlisted loss and damage item on the agenda. This is because she is a worst hit country as shown by the latest flood disaster the country recently experienced, which claimed many lives along with properties and farmlands destroyed in many parts of the country. In addition, considering the enormous volumes of natural gas the country is endowed with, one would urge all stakeholders in this energy business, to further strive, through research and development (R&D) efforts, to fashion out how the huge gas reserves could still be exploited for wealth creation (knowing that it is a clean energy source, though sourced from fossil). Such a process would heavily consider a carbon capture procedure that shall heavily decarbonize the economy (the way Vietnam and South Africa are being applauded by the EU president).

• business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com