Despite the breakdown of UN climate-change talks in Bali last December, the same themes were still being pushed at this week’s meeting in Ghana — but now developing countries have begun to question the effects on the world’s poorest.
Although he recognizes that vulnerability to climate is a result of poverty, Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, had stated he wanted to focus on emissions reductions, to slow down or even halt climate change. This is the standard UN line, strongly supported by the EU and Japan, among others. Not everyone was so keen.
“It is clear that mitigation cannot be a priority for developing countries any more. Adaptation is clearly the way forward,” Ghanaian representative William Agyeman-Bonsu said.
Indeed, nearly all the Least Developed Countries were far more interested in coping with current and future conditions rather than sacrificing economic growth at the altar of emissions reductions, especially when India’s and China’s growth make the idea redundant.
Many of the predicted impacts of climate change, from increased flooding to the spread of infectious diseases, have long been around, killing kill millions of people every year — particularly the poorest.
For poor countries it is therefore essential that climate change policy does not undermine the biggest anti-poverty weapon of all, economic growth. How governments respond, trying to adapt to climate change or trying to stop it, will make all the difference. The UN has claimed that foreign aid can help, but Africa’s countless aid-financed infrastructure projects, riddled with corruption and waste, demonstrate otherwise.
Many have attributed this week’s images of torn bridges and flooded farmlands in Sandema in northern Ghana to climate change. In reality, flooding is a seasonal event that has been occurring for centuries. Farmers suffer in this region because a lack of other jobs forces them to remain in the low-lying basins of the White Volta. So their real problem is poverty, not climate.
Their plight is exacerbated by the cyclical Bagre Dam spillages from neighboring Burkina Faso. From the beginning, the two countries did not work together, relying instead on a badly managed foreign aid package.
It is easy to see why poor countries are skeptical about spending billions of dollars on emissions reduction when similar amounts could improve the infrastructure that keeps the weather at bay — dams, flood defenses, drainage and so on. For many, discussing the future seems irrelevant when the present is so bleak.
De Boer also spoke of the need to stop deforestation as part of climate mitigation strategies. The issues are similar. Ghana has lost half its forests over the past 50 years to slash-and-burn agriculture and logging, with Sandema being one of the worst affected areas.
Local people are best placed to prevent the disappearance of forests — but to do so, they need to know that conservation will work with, not against, their economic well-being. Tourism and the wider leisure industry have proved successful in checking deforestation in the Caribbean, while plantation forestry and lumber management have achieved similar outcomes in Japan, Indonesia and Argentina.
The common factor has been the promotion of clearly defined, and often transferable, property rights. Rights over natural resources empower individuals and communities, meaning those best equipped to conserve their surroundings have an incentive to do so.
Such property rights, together with the rule of law, also have the wider effect of bringing economic growth, which reduces climate vulnerability — especially vulnerability to the diseases that kill millions right now. Governments and international organizations need to focus on true sustainable development, the kind that helps both the environment and the people who live in it.
Climate mitigation schemes, in contrast, are too often dreamed up by bureaucrats with little appreciation of the local situation. The Nigerian government, for example, recently announced its intention to generate 20 percent of energy from renewable sources by 2012, forgetting that the vast majority of its people rely on noxious fuels like wood or dung because they have no access to existing electricity, let alone any future schemes. Nigeria has recently spent more than US$10 billion, according to some estimates, on an energy program that has added zero megawatts to existing supply.
People need electricity now, not pipe dreams: sustainable bio-mass fuels, meaning dung and wood, kill at least 1.6 million children a year, the WHO says.
The world’s poorest countries must continue to fight for greater realism in the climate debate: Their livings and even their lives depend on it.
Franklin Cudjoe and Bright Simons are executive director and director of development respectively at the IMANI Center for Education & Policy in Ghana.
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Sitting in their homes typing on their keyboards and posting on Facebook things like, “Taiwan has already lost its democracy,” “The Democratic Progressive Party is a party of green communists,” or “President William Lai [賴清德] is a dictator,” then turning around and heading to the convenience store to buy a tea egg and an iced Americano, casually chatting in a Line group about which news broadcast was more biased this morning — are such people truly clear about the kind of society in which they are living? This is not meant to be sarcasm or criticism, but an exhausted honesty.
Much has been said about the significance of the recall vote, but here is what must be said clearly and without euphemism: This vote is not just about legislative misconduct. It is about defending Taiwan’s sovereignty against a “united front” campaign that has crept into the heart of our legislature. Taiwanese voters on Jan. 13 last year made a complex decision. Many supported William Lai (賴清德) for president to keep Taiwan strong on the world stage. At the same time, some hoped that giving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) a legislative majority would offer a
RSS