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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS