|
Hardly anyone could have captured the mood across
the world on the global climate talks better than
David Miliband, foreign minister of the United
Kingdom.
"We realize that public interest has flattened out
and yet here we are approaching the most historic
negotiation in human history," he told The Times [of
London] on October 23, 2009. He was referring to the
upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in
Copenhagen, Denmark, scheduled for December 2009.
Lately, though, and to the dismay of Miliband, the
media around the globe is sensationalizing climate
change.
Scientists are deliberating on it more vocally on
many different occasions. Forums are being organized
by different think tanks, non-profit and
nongovernmental organizations, state agencies and
activist groups. The recent devastating drought and
floods in India, Indonesia and East Africa,
including Ethiopia, were all attributed to it alike.
The not-so-many newspapers of our poor nation have
also gone after the hype by allotting much of their
space to climate change related commentaries, op-ed
notes, interviews and features.
However, on the far side of the policymaking arena,
there has never been an agreement on the phenomenon
amongst intellectuals. On the one side are those
scientists who are sceptical about the projections
being made.
For instance, Petr Chylek, professor of Physics and
Atmospheric Sciences at Dalhousie University of
Canada, once opined, "… these scary climatic
projections came from scientists who want to attract
attention to themselves, and those folks who want to
attract funding by scaring the public, and making
things bigger and more dangerous than they really
are."
He is hardly a lone voice.
Patrick J. Michaels of the CATO Institute, Dennis
Avery of the Center for Global Food Issues, and
Richard Lindzon of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, are among the sceptics.
On the other extreme lie those intellectuals, who
are more dominant in policymaking circles, that
connect the past, present and future situations to
assert that earth's climate system is changing. The
team of such scientists, under the auspices of the
Inter-governmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC),
announced in 2007 that, "… the warming of the global
climate system is unequivocal." Moreover, they have
predicted a temperature rise of between 1.1 and 6.4
degrees Celsius in the 21st century.
Amid all the excitement about climate change, two
critical questions seem to be left unrequited.
How committed are the governments of developed
nations to 'walk the walk' as opposed to just 'talk
the talk'? And most important, however, is how
dutifully African governments, including Ethiopia's,
are in living up to the promises that they have made
to their own people?
It is hard to believe that western countries are
committed to take bold actions on decreasing their
carbon dioxide emissions. And I am saying this, not
out of sheer emotion. For those of us who live on
the poor edges of the planet, it would be enough to
remember the undelivered promises that members of
the now defunct Group of Eight (G-8) made in
Gleneagles, United Kingdom, to explore the fortitude
of the West.
With the successful hosting of the former British
Prime Minister, Tony Blair, the G-8 countries had
agreed to increase Official Development Assistance (ODA)
and to, in turn, increase aid by 50 billion dollars
in 2010. But the fact remains that many of these
countries have fallen behind when it comes to
delivering on their promises.
In the same way, the industrial countries are shying
away from a binding international threshold on
carbon dioxide emissions reductions. Even if an
agreement is reached in Copenhagen, the domestic
socio-political and bureaucratic processes of the
West would hold them back from undertaking critical
economic shifts to affect it. In addition, global
geopolitics is playing its own role in pulling back
international agreement in Copenhagen.
As a showcase, the cap-and-trade system has already
failed to pass Congress in the United States. China
and India have also disclosed that they will not be
sacrificing their growth for western ball-passing.
To add to that, the technical, political and
financial capability of the industrialized countries
would make them strong enough to get their national
interests upfront, making the potential deal more
dubious.
Does this all mean that reaching an agreement is not
possible?
I
do not think so. But, it will happen only if the
West gives it a green light on its own terms. The
bottom line is not only in reaching an agreement
that matters but rather in the technical viability,
political soundness, economic feasibility and
“fairness” of it all.
What is even more questionable than the global
commitment is the dedication of African governments
to keep their promises to their people. They have a
track record of failing to live up to their words.
Despite marginal differences, most African
governments have failed to realize democracy; uphold
the rule of law; and ensure equitable development,
transparency and accountability in their countries.
Corruption still runs rampant throughout the
continent. Aid effectiveness is far lower than
expected showing that Africa's bureaucracy is not
efficient enough to make use of the “free money.”
Most African countries are also “lazybones” in
establishing, strengthening and sustaining
institutions. In nearly all of the countries of the
continent, institutional structures are leftovers of
the colonial era. With the slothful pace of reforms,
the said institutions are unsuccessful in catching
up with the new era of globalization, international
competitiveness and technological advancement. Not
the least of these concerns is that Africa is too
poor to have any significant leverage over the
outcomes of the Copenhagen conference.
Yet, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi - spokesperson of
Africa’s in Copenhagen - has vowed "to walk out" of
any negotiation that threatens to be another rape of
our continent. With the conference date getting
closer, many African countries have continued to
disclose their climate change adaptation and
mitigation strategies. As usual these have failed to
ensure wide-ranging participation; they are just a
way, to obtain their share of the estimated 65
billion dollars African Adaptation Plan meant to
mitigate the effects of climate change on the
continent.
Some might paint dubious pictures for their own
benefit. Some might bellow loudly to gain attention
as Petr Chylek believes. Some, on the other hand,
may intone with a sincere cause. But, unless Africa
gets the determination to re-arrange its own house,
there is nothing to stop history from repeating
itself.
In
which case, Copenhagen might just turn out to be
another Gleneagles. |
