This year in Nigeria is one that everyone would wish to forget as much as possible. Things have been rather tough. Inflation is at an all-time high, foods are super-expensive, kidnappings here and there, and to cap it all, a flood that submerged almost 1/3 of an entire region of the country.
Of all the eventful happenings, one seems to have generated a lot of ruckus, not only within the country but all over the world. The flooding that cost lives and properties was attributed to one of the effects of climate change. Apparently, the attribution is right. Erratic precipitation that could see some places experiencing too much or too little rain is one of the signature effects of climate change.
So, why did it generate ruckus?
A few weeks after, the flooding, November 20 to be precise, was the 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP27), in Sharma Egypt. In his address, Nigerian president boldly demanded that African countries should rather be paid for the damaging effects climate change has caused the continent, rather being asked to contribute financially towards mitigating the effects of climate change globally.
And his reasons appear to be logical.
Climate change is driven by the emission of greenhouse gases. The gases form a layer of impediment against the return of reflected solar radiation back into the upper stratosphere. Once this solar radiation become trapped in our atmosphere, the planet gets heated up.
Of course, this shouldn't be a problem ordinarily, as this phenomenon is touted as the number event that moved the planet out of the ice age. But the average global temperature keep rising as more and more of the greenhouse gases keep on being emitted by the actions of man. Since the entire planet shares a single atmosphere, it doesn't matter which part of the world the emissions are from, the whole world suffers its consequences.
Greenhouse gases are emitted when natural processes such as respiration and volcanic eruption takes place. They are also emitted as a result of burning of fossil fuels, burning of vegetation, removal of vegetation layers, and several other anthropogenic activities. The initial argument was that since every country contribute to global emission, then each country should be financially responsible towards efforts to mitigate the climate changing effects of these gases.
However, statistics have shown that 3 countries - India, China, and the United States are responsible for more than 50 percent of greenhouse gases emission globally. A more inclusive statistics is that the top 20 countries when it comes to climate changing emissions are responsible for more than 80 percent of annual global emission.
And, guess what!
Not a single African country is in the world's top 20 emitter of greenhouse gases.
However, when. it comes to the debilitating effects of climate change, African countries have been at the receiving end of the largest portion. It appears the greatest effects of climate change is felt downstream of where the greatest amount of greenhouse gases have been emitted. This year alone, Nigeria has lost hundreds of her citizens to flooding, millions in dollars of properties have been destroyed, and climate change-fueled insecurity keep claiming lives and properties as well as creating hunger in the land.
African countries remain one of the poorest in the world with about 1/3 of its 1.4 billion inhabitants living below the poverty line. Nigeria as a country in Africa takes the largest chunk of this poverty stat.
Thus, asking for a country like Nigeria to pay for climate change sounds totally illogical and would seems like a gross injustice if the available data emissions and climate change-related disasters are anything to go by. Instead, countries who contribute very little to emissions but suffers huge loss due to climate change related disasters should be adequately compensated from the climate change mitigation coiffeur.
And it seems that's the general agreement at the just concluded 27th climate conference.
What do you think?