As a long-time advocate for human and environmental rights, I am terrified by the unprecedented frequency of extreme weather events. With each passing day, it becomes increasingly evident that we are in the midst of an escalating climate emergency. Disasters that past generations would have viewed as Biblical or apocalyptic have become our new normal.
This includes the devastating floods and severe droughts that claimed hundreds of lives and displaced millions of people in Uganda and across the Horn of Africa, and the recent floods that wiped out entire cities in Libya.
These events were not mere acts of nature. We have known for more than half a century that burning fossil fuels increases the planet’s temperatures and that climate change would have catastrophic consequences. We persisted in burning them anyway.
However, the striking image of a recent climate protest in southern France, in which climate activists painted a giant slogan condemning French oil giant TotalEnergies in the dry bed of the Agly River, is a stark reminder that some bear more responsibility for our current predicament than others — namely, the handful of rich countries that account for most of the world’s global greenhouse gas emissions.
However, the real culprits are the fossil-fuel companies that have plundered Earth’s resources and hooked our societies on their products. After all, oil companies knew about the environmental implications of their activities since the 1970s, but opted to conceal these findings and churn out disinformation about climate change.
The record-breaking temperatures and unprecedented calamities we are seeing all over the world are a consequence of those choices.
To halt global warming, we must reduce and eventually eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency have stressed, the only way to do so is to end all fossil-fuel exploration immediately.
Ultimately, it is clear that the longer we wait to reduce emissions, the greater our collective suffering will be.
Fossil fuel companies have a different perspective. In a recent regulatory filing, ExxonMobil asserted that “it is highly unlikely that society would accept the degradation in global standard of living required” to achieve net zero emissions.
Despite being well-informed about the calamitous effects of their operations, these companies have ignored their own climate scientists to protect their profits — US$56 billion last year for ExxonMobil.
TotalEnergies, whose Tilenga project in Uganda flooded farmlands with contaminated water, earned US$36 billion last year.
This is why the phrase accompanying the French river painting — “If there’s no water, let them drink oil” — is a powerful rallying cry. Oil companies’ extravagant and reckless behavior over the past few decades evokes parallels with France’s Ancien Regime. Just as the aristocracy resisted change in the lead-up to the 1789 French Revolution, the fossil fuel industry is unwilling to relinquish its power and influence, regardless of how its actions affect everyone else.
Contrary to the industry’s claims, the net zero transition will not lead to a cascading decline in living standards. Crucially, no one is calling for an abrupt halt to all fossil fuel use. Climate models have shown that the best solution is to ban new exploration and shift to a more efficient system that uses only a fraction of reserves while we build the infrastructure to maintain current living standards.
The green transition is not a compromise; it is a promise. As numerous studies have shown, renewables and energy efficiency can power our homes, offices, cities and industries, including for the billions of people in developing countries. This shift will create millions of new jobs, improve the quality of our air and water, and help mitigate the worst effects of climate change.
Moreover, it will enable vulnerable countries and communities to adapt and build resilience against the growing threat of extreme weather events.
Financing this energy transition is a daunting challenge that will require a combination of strategies and mechanisms. Barbadian Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley’s Bridgetown Initiative, for example, advocates urgent reform of the global financial architecture.
Similarly, the recent Africa Climate Summit in Nairobi concluded with a joint call for a global carbon tax.
Another promising idea is to cover the costs of climate-driven damage and the green transition by taxing fossil-fuel companies’ windfall profits.
As world leaders prepare for next month’s UN Climate Change Conference in the United Arab Emirates, this proposal merits serious consideration. Holding the world’s biggest polluters accountable is both morally justifiable and economically sensible.
Amid today’s myriad political and economic shocks, the climate protest in the Agly River understandably received very little attention, but I hope that this powerful image will resonate with others as it has with me. After all, this planet is our only home. Given the existential threat posed by climate change, we have no choice but to fight for its survival.
Dickens Kamugisha is chief executive officer of the Africa Institute for Energy Governance.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has a good reason to avoid a split vote against the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in next month’s presidential election. It has been here before and last time things did not go well. Taiwan had its second direct presidential election in 2000 and the nation’s first ever transition of political power, with the KMT in opposition for the first time. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was ushered in with less than 40 percent of the vote, only marginally ahead of James Soong (宋楚瑜), the candidate of the then-newly formed People First Party (PFP), who got almost 37
The three teams running in January’s presidential election were finally settled on Friday last week, but as the official race started, the vice-presidential candidates of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have attracted more of the spotlight than the presidential candidates in the first week. After the two parties’ anticipated “blue-white alliance” dramatically broke up on the eve of the registration deadline, the KMT’s candidate, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), the next day announced Broadcasting Corp of China chairman Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康) as his running mate, while TPP Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je
On Tuesday, Taiwan’s TAIEX stock index peaked at 17,360 points and closed at 17,341 points, surpassing Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index, which fell to 17,303 points and closed at 17,541 points. A few years ago, the gap between the Taiwanese and Hong Kong stock indices was more than 20,000 points, but this was before the 2019 anti-extradition protests. Hong Kong is one of the world’s most important financial centers, but many Chinese Internet users joke that it is only a ruin today. When asked by a legislative councilor whether he would communicate with social media platforms in the mainland to request
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate and New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) has called on his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) counterpart, William Lai (賴清德), to abandon his party’s Taiwanese independence platform. Hou’s remarks follow an article published in the Nov. 30 issue of Foreign Affairs by three US-China relations academics: Bonnie Glaser, Jessica Chen Weiss and Thomas Christensen. They suggested that the US emphasize opposition to any unilateral changes in the “status quo” across the Taiwan Strait, and that if Lai wins the election, he should consider freezing the Taiwanese independence clause. The concept of de jure independence was first