Climate change and Third World oil producing nations  

Strategic optimisation of actions taken to fight climate change yields efficient results that are drawn from determined steps taken by the poorer oil producing countries, with strong consideration to drive economic growth for their economies. This strategy demands that economic drivers ought to be more focused with dedicated efforts towards improving their national economic efficiency. This group of leaders, of course, excludes bad leaders in all the known corrupt nations of the world. The desired economic goals are realised by innovatively managing their natural resources in the oil and gas industry, in such a manner that climate change impact is simultaneously addressed, effectively checked and controlled from escalating beyond the existing threshold of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; to record carbon neutrality on the carbon footprint within the economy.

The oil and gas producing nations of the Third World are desirous of creating wealth from the energy business, and therefore, they are not unexpected to be desperate and very keen in turning their naturally endowed hydrocarbon resources into petrodollar, while the tempo of the decarbonisation process to mitigate global warming is retained and kept alive through tree planting technology, as a global environmental protection policy. It should be viewed as normal because they also need to grow economically. It should not be out of place to observe such patriotic national leaders who aspire to exploit their naturally endowed capital stock for financial gains in the national interest and towards economic growth, especially for the poorer nations that have not substantially tapped the opportunities provided by their natural endowment in hydrocarbons. This would be in spite of the fact that fossil fuels have been identified and scientifically proven as the major determinants and causes of greenhouse gas emissions, in the course of man’s pursuit for financial prosperity through energy production and consumption everywhere in the world.

To further buttress the above point in this discourse, Guyana, for instance, is one of the Caribbean nations that boomed economically after discovering oil and gas from their coast. Sometime ago, in a television interview with BBC’s Stephen Sakur, the president of Guyana was forced to interrupt Sakur over a hypothetical figure he gave in his presumed lecture and data analysis on carbon emissions over the next decade or two. The speculation  by Sakur was was one of netting an income of one hundred and fifty billion dollars ($150,000,000,000), as a result of the nation’s hydrocarbon operations, but then subjecting the entire globe to be exposed to an atmospheric pollution and release of two billion tonnes (2,000,000,000 tonnes) of carbon emissions. It was very clear from the instant counter analytical details given by the Guyana president in defence, and berating Sakur with a remark about the hypocrisy that exists of the West that has lost about 65 percent of its biodiversity and damaged their environment through industrial revolution. 

He went further by pointing to the size of Guyana’s preserved forest that has remained intact, which stores 19.5 giga-tonnes of carbon, and is also as big as England and Scotland combined. This counter and opposing position, obviously, was rather loaded with shocking factual reveals, marshalled out, and it nullified the initially intended expression of disapproval (in ignorance) of the ongoing hydrocarbon operations in Guyana, that still has the lowest deforestation rate in the world. On global warming mitigation, he made the BBC man realise that with their greatest oil exploration, Guyana will still be net zero in terms of carbon balancing.

The oil producing countries of the poorer nations of the world should not be subjected to suffer unduly any form of international political intimidation from the rich, fully industrialised and developed countries, who are even the main culprits and the heavy emitters of the GHG. Equity and fairness should be applied and implemented through carbon taxation, with financial compensations being worked out and paid to the climate change victims, who are predominantly the vulnerable peasant farmers in all the poorer nations of the world that rarely violate the carbon tax laws because they are scarcely grouped among the heavy carbon emitters of the world. Poorer oil producing countries need to, on their own, make committed contributions as well in the global warming mitigation programmes, through very strict policy against gas flaring, for instance, during exploration and production of fossil fuels in the oil industry.

Nigeria, for instance, needs to initiate and embark on massive tree planting within all locations of her industrial layouts. This shall, to some extent, serve as a simple carbon sequestration and carbon capture technique that is not Hi-tech or capital intensive. Leveraging on the advantage of the nation’s tropical climate region, very high carbon absorbing trees can significantly do much and contribute immensely to carbon reduction, through the biological photosynthesis process in taking out much of man’s emitted carbon from the environment; and symbiotically (in man and plant relationship) throw back to the environment the needed oxygen for man’s usage. This will allow the larger economy to still enjoy the UN’s climate change net zero target and energy transition timeline for a few more decades. The relevant ministries are therefore urged to encourage massive tree planting policy, while the oil exploration and production last.

• 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