By Neba-Fuh
The snow of the United Nations Climate Change conference-COP15 in
Copenhagen- Denmark has not yet melted. The Earth had a prolonged
'treat' as it watched its caretakers' hypocrisy.
While 'developed' and 'developing' nations flexed their
bargaining powers to broker a deal, 'non-developing' nations' dictators
looked on, hoping to grab any financial deal that will be landed. The
questions that keep lingering in many Africans' minds are: How can
dictators who cannot protect or save their people whom they see and
feel everyday and who constantly protest for a better livelihood,
protect and save an intangible entity like the environment, which will
never take to the streets to beg for salvation? If a ruler hoards
stolen billions of dollars to the detriment of his people- leaving them
to rot in poverty-why on earth can one think he can partake wholeheartedly
in any partnership aimed at saving 'anything' for generations unborn?
The differing agendas of leaders, hardened autocrats and self- aggrandizing dictators in Copenhagen caused the failure of the conference. The notion of saving the Earth for future generations is the most generous ambition its citizens can pursue.It involves much of foresight, sacrifice and attitude. A noble quest that must involve partnership if it is to succeed.
The non-adherence of the United States of America to the Kyoto Protocol undermined its authority to lead any genuine quest for any eventual climate change negotiations aimed at coming up with tangible solutions . Being one of the world's foremost polluters who detested Kyoto, United States could not have come to the Copenhagen Conference with any ego of supremacy concerning the agenda of the conference. Being pious is not being inferior especially when you carry the yoke of guilt. The worst this time was that, they were trying to negotiate with their current creditor- China-another developing power which tops the pollution chart. The outcome: A non-legally binding paperwork.
Even if scientific data are mixed up in this business of saving the planet, we are justified by the effects we experience on daily basis void of any longevity of geological time, to take action now. We cannot just blend with the comfort zone of proponents of the so-called 'Climate gate' who say that , the Earth is constantly taking care of itself, so we need not waste our time and energy to protect it. Yes, nature takes care of itself if and only if we follow natural laws. Anytime we deviate from natural principles, we are bound to compensate. That is the natural law! Anytime we destabilize the ecosystem, we are breaching natural harmony and we cannot afford to ignore the effects on future generations.
From the industrial revolution to present day, man has continuously sought to better his life by technological breakthroughs. Most often, his activities have affected adversely his environment, resulting to a damaged planet. From the coal mines to oil fields, from timber lumbering to chemical industrial plants, from locomotive engines to airplanes and space shuttles, man has incessantly unleashed pollutants into the atmosphere or destroyed agents that can absorb some of these gases, at a disproportionate rate.
The pygmies of the rain forest of Africa can not be put at par on the environmental degradation scale for felling trees to pitch huts or hunting edible game for their daily meals, with French companies that explore and exploit African timber in that same forest, with the help of African rulers.
As Kenyan environmentalist and 2005 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Wangari Maathai puts it: " We are very fond of blaming the poor for destroying the environment. But often it is the powerful, including governments that are responsible."
Without doubt 'developing' and 'non- developing' countries deserve compensation as well as booster for an environmental 'war' they are called upon to partake, whose origins they contributed very little to. The logic here is, if the 'developed world' attained its status by contributing immensely to global warming, why should it compel 'developing nations' to slow down their developing strides in its bid to cut down its emission of greenhouse gases?
This was the bone of contention at Copenhagen.
Kyoto Protocol had laid a framework for cutting greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere in order to prevent the eventual effect of disorienting the climate system as a result of global warming. While some countries adhered to the clauses of the treaty many did not, even those who ratified the treaty. The worst case was the United States under George W Bush, which openly rejected the Kyoto Protocol.
The nexus of adverse Climate change is global warming, which can simplistically be described as the heating up of the Earth as a result of the emission of green house gases such as Carbon dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, Methane etc, into the atmosphere caused by man's activities involving the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, agricultural activities, fermentation and other chemical activities. And the main nerve of global warming stems from man's insatiable quest for, and dependence on petroleum(oil and gas) and solid fuel(coal). The politics of the world has been shaped by these precious minerals and therefore, those who thought the climate change conference will bury world political undertones for the good of mankind were mistaken.
Just like Nuclear Proliferation, Global Warming deliberations can never take place at a round table. There will always be heads and tails in this matter, and the common African will take his assigned position.
China and India are emerging economies finding it difficult to come to terms with the reduction of C02 emission levels demanded of them, citing economic effects as reasons. The options of alternative fuel sources or cleaner energy sources are plausible , but the simple fact is that as of now technologically empowered nations are rationing funds aimed at pushing research in these directions. What would one expect from nations that still possess stocks of billions of barrels of unexplored petroleum ? Now the dilemma of saving petroleum for the future inhabitants of their own part of the earth or just saving the earth for every future inhabitant, is causing the foot-dragging on this global climate changing problem.
As Veteran Human Rights activist and Noble Peace Laureate(1984), Archbishop Desmond Tutu puts it: "This is not crying wolf. This is the only world we have. If this world disappears, whether you are rich are poor, whether you are free or oppressed the fate is the same for all of us".
Industrialized nations cannot stifle the process of development in developing nations except they are ready to take their responsibilities in atoning financially for the damage they have caused and are still causing to the environment this far, as well as helping these nations financially in their fight against climate change. It is no secret that carrying out this kind of partnership with corrupt rulers of African nations will be a daunting task.
The fact is that Global Warming and Nuclear Proliferation will define world politics this century. The irony is that, while mankind will sort to prevent the implosion of Mother Earth as a result of the former, the latter may just be the concoction that has been prepared for an 'unintentional' anticipated explosion of Mother Earth, and thereafter, there will be no finger pointing.
The differing agendas of leaders, hardened autocrats and self- aggrandizing dictators in Copenhagen caused the failure of the conference. The notion of saving the Earth for future generations is the most generous ambition its citizens can pursue.It involves much of foresight, sacrifice and attitude. A noble quest that must involve partnership if it is to succeed.
The non-adherence of the United States of America to the Kyoto Protocol undermined its authority to lead any genuine quest for any eventual climate change negotiations aimed at coming up with tangible solutions . Being one of the world's foremost polluters who detested Kyoto, United States could not have come to the Copenhagen Conference with any ego of supremacy concerning the agenda of the conference. Being pious is not being inferior especially when you carry the yoke of guilt. The worst this time was that, they were trying to negotiate with their current creditor- China-another developing power which tops the pollution chart. The outcome: A non-legally binding paperwork.
Even if scientific data are mixed up in this business of saving the planet, we are justified by the effects we experience on daily basis void of any longevity of geological time, to take action now. We cannot just blend with the comfort zone of proponents of the so-called 'Climate gate' who say that , the Earth is constantly taking care of itself, so we need not waste our time and energy to protect it. Yes, nature takes care of itself if and only if we follow natural laws. Anytime we deviate from natural principles, we are bound to compensate. That is the natural law! Anytime we destabilize the ecosystem, we are breaching natural harmony and we cannot afford to ignore the effects on future generations.
From the industrial revolution to present day, man has continuously sought to better his life by technological breakthroughs. Most often, his activities have affected adversely his environment, resulting to a damaged planet. From the coal mines to oil fields, from timber lumbering to chemical industrial plants, from locomotive engines to airplanes and space shuttles, man has incessantly unleashed pollutants into the atmosphere or destroyed agents that can absorb some of these gases, at a disproportionate rate.
The pygmies of the rain forest of Africa can not be put at par on the environmental degradation scale for felling trees to pitch huts or hunting edible game for their daily meals, with French companies that explore and exploit African timber in that same forest, with the help of African rulers.
As Kenyan environmentalist and 2005 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Wangari Maathai puts it: " We are very fond of blaming the poor for destroying the environment. But often it is the powerful, including governments that are responsible."
Without doubt 'developing' and 'non- developing' countries deserve compensation as well as booster for an environmental 'war' they are called upon to partake, whose origins they contributed very little to. The logic here is, if the 'developed world' attained its status by contributing immensely to global warming, why should it compel 'developing nations' to slow down their developing strides in its bid to cut down its emission of greenhouse gases?
This was the bone of contention at Copenhagen.
Kyoto Protocol had laid a framework for cutting greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere in order to prevent the eventual effect of disorienting the climate system as a result of global warming. While some countries adhered to the clauses of the treaty many did not, even those who ratified the treaty. The worst case was the United States under George W Bush, which openly rejected the Kyoto Protocol.
The nexus of adverse Climate change is global warming, which can simplistically be described as the heating up of the Earth as a result of the emission of green house gases such as Carbon dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, Methane etc, into the atmosphere caused by man's activities involving the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, agricultural activities, fermentation and other chemical activities. And the main nerve of global warming stems from man's insatiable quest for, and dependence on petroleum(oil and gas) and solid fuel(coal). The politics of the world has been shaped by these precious minerals and therefore, those who thought the climate change conference will bury world political undertones for the good of mankind were mistaken.
Just like Nuclear Proliferation, Global Warming deliberations can never take place at a round table. There will always be heads and tails in this matter, and the common African will take his assigned position.
China and India are emerging economies finding it difficult to come to terms with the reduction of C02 emission levels demanded of them, citing economic effects as reasons. The options of alternative fuel sources or cleaner energy sources are plausible , but the simple fact is that as of now technologically empowered nations are rationing funds aimed at pushing research in these directions. What would one expect from nations that still possess stocks of billions of barrels of unexplored petroleum ? Now the dilemma of saving petroleum for the future inhabitants of their own part of the earth or just saving the earth for every future inhabitant, is causing the foot-dragging on this global climate changing problem.
As Veteran Human Rights activist and Noble Peace Laureate(1984), Archbishop Desmond Tutu puts it: "This is not crying wolf. This is the only world we have. If this world disappears, whether you are rich are poor, whether you are free or oppressed the fate is the same for all of us".
Industrialized nations cannot stifle the process of development in developing nations except they are ready to take their responsibilities in atoning financially for the damage they have caused and are still causing to the environment this far, as well as helping these nations financially in their fight against climate change. It is no secret that carrying out this kind of partnership with corrupt rulers of African nations will be a daunting task.
The fact is that Global Warming and Nuclear Proliferation will define world politics this century. The irony is that, while mankind will sort to prevent the implosion of Mother Earth as a result of the former, the latter may just be the concoction that has been prepared for an 'unintentional' anticipated explosion of Mother Earth, and thereafter, there will be no finger pointing.
It is quite simple really. USA and Europe caused 75-80% of the pollution problem. It is their historical and moral responsibility to play the leading role in everyway. Stop playing poly-tricks and power games. It is abhorrent that they should even remotely expect "developing countries" to sacrifice themselves again to keep the West in the lifestyle they are accustomed to. Prople are starving, others are living a hand-to-mouth existence e.g. China"s 800 million peasants. You cannot pass the buck by trying to get China to shoulder your burden having kindly bestowed the timely and convenient title of "responsible stake-holder" which really means - you have lots of money so pay more. Incidentally their pollution problem was largely a western export. China gets about 15 - 20% for her manufacturers. The rest goes West. China has made an ambitious, voluntary initiative to do it's part and has honoured any committment it has made over the last 60 years, whatever the cost. What say the West? Their children will never forgive them if they do not come clean. They will never be allowed to keep repeating it's crime against humanity. The people of the West will not stand for this. Get with the program, we are all in the same boat. This is a time for coutage, not self-interest. Wake up!
Posted by: Christos Sun | December 25, 2009 at 08:42 PM