Members of the African Group board from left to right: Pa Ousman Jarju of Gambia, Grace Adhiambo of Kenya, Kamel Djemouai from Algeria and Bruno Sekoli of Lesotho attend a press conference during the Climate Change Talks in Barcelona Tuesday.
(Manu Fernandez/AP)Photos (1 of 1)
Why African countries are boycotting climate change talks
UN climate change talks in Barcelona have stalled as African countries say the world's rich nations must do more to cut emissions.
By Scott Baldauf | Staff writer 11.03.09
Talks over how to cut back global carbon emissions to ease the effects of climate change have broken down, with African nations arguing that rich nations are not doing their fair share.
The latest round of talks, scheduled for Nov. 2-6 in Barcelona, are aimed at looking into a number of natural remedies that might help manage the rise in global emissions of carbon dioxide, one of the main by products from the burning of oil, coal, and other fossil fuels in electrical power plants and heavy industries.
Richer nations (except the United States) agreed at a 1997 United Nations-sponsored forum in Kyoto, Japan, to reduce their industrial emissions by 11 percent to 15 percent from their 1990 levels by the year 2020. But a growing number of developing nations, many of them in Africa, argue that richer nations such as Japan, Britain, Germany, and the US (which did not sign the Kyoto Protocol) should cut emissions by as much as 40 percent in order to slow down climate change.
“They’re saying let’s focus on the real issues, which is targets for developed countries,” South African delegation head Alf Wills told Reuters news agency in Barcelona. Richer nations are using “delaying tactics” rather than talking about how Europe and the industrial nations can share the burden more fairly in cutting back on carbon emissions, he said.
Why climate change hits Africa the hardest
For Africa, a continent identified as the most vulnerable to climate change because of its vast arid areas and its poorer population’s reliance on subsistence farming, climate change is an incredibly powerful issue with an immediate impact on people’s lives. Severe droughts across the semi-arid mid-section of Africa – from Senegal to Somalia – have forced hundreds of thousands of nomadic livestock herders and pastoral farmers to give up their once-fertile lands in search of food and survival. Climate change may have even been the tinder for the brutal war in Darfur, as nomads and farmers competed for dwindling water supplies. (Read our in-depth report on that here.)
“Africa is heavily impacted by climate change,” says Christian Lambrechts, a policy coordinator for the United Nations Environment Program in Nairobi. Africa has experienced some of the world’s highest warming trends, and its relatively poor citizens are living so close to the very edge of subsistence that when major climate changes occur, large numbers are unable to adapt, and must simply move to other areas, he says. “Put all this together, and you can understand why this is an important issue.”
What are the solutions?
Identifying the problem is one thing. Coming up with a solution is quite another. Addressing climate change requires that both developing and developed nations give something up by cutting back on electricity produced with “dirty” fuels such as oil, natural gas, and coal and switching to more expensive but environmentally friendly methods such as wind power, solar, and geothermal.
It is the richer nations that have been producing greenhouse gases for decades, African leaders argue. It is richer nations, too, that have the financial resources to clean up their acts, and it is the richer nations that need to make greater sacrifices.
The Kyoto Protocol, signed by some 184 nations to date, bound all nations to reduce their carbon emissions up to 2012, and current talks aim to extend the cutback in emissions until 2020 and beyond. At the time the Kyoto Protocol was being debated, the United States accounted for a staggering 36 percent of all the world’s carbon emissions. But the US itself, which signed the Kyoto Protocol but has not ratified it, is not bound by the commitments other nations face in cutting carbon emissions. Many US economists and politicians argue that emission targets will hurt the American economy and eliminate jobs and will be meaningless as long as fast-developing nations such as India, China and Brazil continue to increase their own emissions.
“On the one hand, you have richer nations that want to maintain profligate lifestyles, and nobody wants to change their habits, and they want us to remain poor by regulating our emissions and telling us we can’t industrialize,” says Alex Alusa, the climate change coordinator for the Kenyan Prime Minister, Raila Odinga. “That is not fair.”
“Every country needs to develop, to improve the lot of their own people, and that means we have to industrialize, and then to consume, and consumption leads to emissions,” says Mr. Alusa. The richer nations need to recognize that poorer nations will increase their emissions, he adds, and that it is the richer nations who must bear the greater burden for switching to cleaner and more expensive energies.
<< Who is Simon Mann? | MainComments
2. elizabeth burns | 11.03.09
I live on a 30,000 acre South Texas Ranch with ExxonMObil - the largest and richest oil company. I can tell you first hand they do NOT care about emissions. They have old facilities across Texas and rather than modernize and cut emissions, they just get grandfather permits. They watch as pipelines dump. They flare huge volumes of gas. They run an old and wasteful operation. I think ExxonMobil should set an example. For almost 18 months, I have followed ExxonMObil’s operation on my website and blog. You can see for yourself exactly how ExxonMobil operates. It looks like something out of a third world country. If this is how ExxonMObil operates in South Texas in 2009 — I can only imagine what they get away with in real third world countries. ExxonMobil has leased almost 2 million contiguous acres in South Texas since the 1930’s and it’s a huge dump with contaminated groundwater and flare stacks with huge fire balls. Their old 1950’s pipelines are in a poor state of repair and natural gas condensate bubbles out of our fields and roads.
All you hear about ExxonMObil and green and carrying about the environment is just hypocritical propaganda. Believe, my live with these idiots. They are nothing but bureaucrats. Don’t look for them to help out at all.
3. Dave | 11.03.09
Carter, I think you’re completely missing the point. This really has little or nothing to do with climate change, at all. It’s about redistribution of wealth, plain and simple.
The reason developing African nations want so badly for a 40% reduction in emissions from wealthier nations is because they know that the only way to do so is by putting a serious cap on the industry of those nations. By forcing stronger caps on our industry, and taking the “fair share” of the burden off of their own shoulders, these African nations have effectively muscled their wan into a market in which they, otherwise, are simply not equipped to compete.
They’re asking for the world to take the client share of the U.S., Japan and UK away, and hand it to them- as they can do it cheaper because their regulations are so much looser.
In essence, taking the industry from those who’ve worked decades to build it up, and handing it to them.
Global socialism 101.
4. Dave | 11.03.09
Elizabeth Burns- right from the get-go, your post is flawed. Exxon-Mobil may be the largest oil company in the U.S., but they are a small fish, globally- at only 1/7 the size of their next competitor on the global market.
You then complain that they cut old facilities, at the same time as you’re complaining about their expansions. Which is it?
And did you consider that, perhaps, they’re cutting the old facilities because it’s simply more cost effective to build new, more emissions-efficient ones, than to retrofit the older ones with new technologies?
Or do you think money should not matter to a business?
Either way, your criticism is nonsensical and self-contradictory, in that particular sense.
I’m not saying they do no wrong- obviously they could be more efficient.
But that really isn’t the core of this particular issue. This is not about
big, bad Exxon-Mobile polluting a third world nation while laughing and lighting their Cuban cigars with $100 bills…
…it’s about the industry of those third world nations, who are far dirtier and backward than any branch of Exxon-Mobile, telling the UN that, though they produce up to 40% more emissions from any of their plants than a typical Exxon refinery, they should be allowed to only cut their emissions by 5%, if at all, while the cleaner facilities in the west, and Japan, be straddled with ridiculously restrictive emissions caps of 40%!!!
(Thus allowing the dirtier African plants to continue to thrive, doing nothing to stop emissions, while Exxon’s clients go to them, rather than pay the higher prices Exxon will have to charge to meet those standards.)
This isn’t some fairytale or David vs. Goliath story.
It’s more like the local mob shaking down the local Wal-mart.
5. John Simpson | 11.03.09
The African leaders are absolutely correct, except that I would say the richer nations should shoot for reductions of 50% or more. But of course, none of this is going to happen, even if the wealthier nations pledge to do so. Rhetoric is easy. Action - especially when the action requires the wholesale change in the lifestyles of billions of people - is extremely difficult.
And like Elizabeth Burns just wrote - and I have seen similar things from other (really all) corporations - they are merely talking green, not doing green. Green rhetoric seems to be the fad these days. But I have seen no legitimate action to back up the words. Not from corporations, governments or individuals, except in very rare cases. What little is being done, is so very little that it’s a farce really. It takes a lot more that a new product label proclaiming a company’s green-ness to make a real impact on the environment.
Sadly, I think it’s really too late to do anything anyway. I have seen so many disturbing signs the last few years, in many different locations, which lead me to believe that we have irreparably destroyed the environment, no matter what we do from now on. As long as humans swarm the Earth, especially at the population levels we are currently experiencing, the environment, along with all sorts of animal and plant species, will suffer dearly. People are just too selfish and short-sighted to compromise their lifestyles.
Convenience is king I’m afraid.
6. ScepticalinOrlando | 11.03.09
Does anyone believe the US is going to commit economic suicide and ratify a climate treaty that is not in ours or the world’s best interest? How will the world benefit with an America that is financially ruined and whose influence in the world is badly degraded? This is a ploy by the have nots to get something for nothing. the African leaders would do well to stop the revolutions and killings that are doing more harm to the people than global warming. And, how much of the billions we “owe” them would end up in the bank account of some tin horn dictator?
7. Carter | 11.03.09
Oh believe me, I understand that it’s all about money. I just feel like the climate talks have always been a bit of a joke, but someone finally comes out and says it.
Real emissions change won’t happen until we all start feeling the effects dramatically, like coughing all the way to work or dramatically different climate (dramatic enough that we don’t need a scientist to tell us.) Obviously if one country is forced to dramatically cut emissions then industry will flee to a more friendly environment. I understand the economics, I just wish the US would stop pretending that it cares about climate change by asking everyone else to change.
8. Marian | 11.03.09
Yes, Dave the African nations hope to compete in global markets by delaying strict contemporary environmental regulations. Well, so? Why is that socialism? The U.S. government gave huge breaks to the railway industry, shipping and later the airline industry in order to compete against Britain. Only after we became the richest country on earth did we begin in 1970 to enact significant environmental protections. African nations were held back by Britain, Frances & other European countries all through the colonial period which did not end in some places until the late 1970s. Assuming more of the responsibility for environmental regulations and allowing Africa (ie. an emerging market) to grow its economies is not only good for Africa but good for Europe and the U.S. which are mature markets and where economic growth is slowing. This is part of basic Economics 101 at least where I studied. You are right that it is about the redistribution of wealth but its also about growing wealth for all nations.
9. elizabeth burns | 11.03.09
My point is that emissions could be cut easily in the USA by the big companies like ExxonMobil. Their old equipment is very wasteful - modern stuff operates on much less gas. ExxonMobil would save money if they modernized in the USA - but they are bureaucrats and have shifted their focus internationally - so there is no one to make the decision. It doesn’t matter what the laws are if the biggest operators are exempt. I’m not talking about a global treaty - I’m talking about the current laws that apply to everyone except the majors with the old stuff. It’s just common sense. The USA should do their own emissions cleaning up regardless of what Africa thinks or wants — because its good for Americans. Old stuff pollutes and is wasteful. It’s even a wise business move. But, XOM in the USA is like the Soviet Union was before the fall - old bureaucrats teetering on old infrastructure.
On my blog, I go thru all these old facilities. You can see for yourself what I mean. I have total access to the whole XOM 30,000 acre junky operation because I live on the ranch.
10. richard potter | 11.03.09
This is a critical issue for the United States as a world leader. We should be setting the new standards and giving hope to those that look to us for answers, similar to the Aids legislation passed by Congress last year aimed at much of Africa.
11. diogenes23 | 11.03.09
go to a 4 day week and turn off all or most of those street lights after a certain hour.
12. AfroGeografa | 11.03.09
The argument made by African countries is significant. This is not the case for or against rather a realisation within the continent that certain issues need coherent and consistent approach.
Whether the issues will be addressed or achieved is another battle. United States, European Union, Canada and Japan are not in the least strategically “interested” to consider African position without strings attached. Berlin Conference is still in session.
13. Will | 11.03.09
I think that we should aim to cut emissions by 80% or 90% because then we won’t be able to produce computers or power to run the internet. That will then save us the hassle of having stupid posting arguments about climate change!
14. HypnoToad | 11.03.09
How many ways is this a knot of ridiculousness? Let’s count:
1. Griping at Europe to slash emissions is pretty funny considering Europe has already failed miserably at meeting their own self-imposed Kyoto smog quotas.
2. Ungrateful African nations have benefitted immeasurably from the agricultural, medical, and human rights advances of the industrialized world. Like it or not, that takes energy, and plenty of it.
3. The UN, which couldn’t plot an effective stroll around a city block, serves mostly as a loudspeaker for large-scale human-rights abusers. What is likely to be accomplished here even if Senegal did show up?
4. For all the whining about the US using 25% of the world’s energy, we’ve used that power to create unbelievable quantities of technological advances, sending technology, food, clothing and other humanitarian aid everywhere we can…and often for FREE! Did you know some African countries have refused our freebies because, for example, an abundance of donated clothing is ruining their textile and retail industries? Where would Greenpeace and Amnesty International be if they had to get real jobs instead of living off the massive wealth the US generates? Oh, and let’s not forget pulling the world out of a couple world wars. Shouldn’t we get some credit for all that? Or was Libya on the verge of creating microchips and/or polio eradication a few decades ago without my knowledge?
5. Of course, the whole notion of global warming — from co2 as the driver to the classically useless IPCC computer models to the UN refusal to consider other likely factors (sun spots?) — is extremely dubious in the first place. But hey, if you’re a little wheel in the machinery of the world, why not try to work a few sympathy concessions out of people? Europe does it to us. They should likewise get some heat (ha!) from the societies further down humanity’s food chain.
15. Sog | 11.03.09
Why dont we just stop all this crazy talk about global warming…Ok I get it…Al Gore did not know how to fund his wealthy lifestyle after leaving politics..He ginned up a big scare and made billions…God Bless him, its the American way. But now he has a peace prize, an oscar and more money than God…we can drop it…Al is fine.
16. Peter Lipson | 11.03.09
Dave, that’s completely self-serving logic. It turns the US into a victim and dismisses any validity to the threats to the protesters’ health and environment. It’s a convenient way for powerful nations to continue exploiting the available resources of the world, dismissing the incidental costs borne by all - including costs to those who gain enough profit to compensate and expect to have enough resources to escape the consequences in the long run. The rest of the world has plenty of legitimate reason to fear that they’ll be left to suffer, while the rich countries spend what it takes to preserve the quality of life for the fortunate. If climate-change doubters are correct in the end then those worries may be proven unfounded, but that’s an awfully big risk for the rest of the world to take.
17. Donna | 11.03.09
Africa is trying to survive by establishing economies of scale. This is survival in particular, not socialism. Manufacturing from the West is just being set up in at least one of the more stable African countries. We have heard so little from the OAS in the news. Africa is still in the difficult process of transitioning and needs to find its place in the world market. In this past era, it has been rife with instability worsened by the historic proxy Cold Wars and then over a decade later, hit by the AIDS epidemic. African states need a chance to be a viable part of the world economy. The people need microfinancing just as the Bangladesh projects that proved so successful. Increased affluence may well mean access to water and food and most of all, hope and stability for many African lives.
19. TexLeeger | 11.03.09
Dave, Please provide proof (with citations) for your claims about African desire to redistribute wealth. Thank you.
20. Kyphnos | 11.03.09
The argument is valid. North America and Europe were allowed to blacken the sky for centuries in pursuit of industrialization and economic prosperity. Africa should have her chance to do the same. Africans do not need a lecture to cut back on emissions from anyone because they hardly produce any.
21. Wei Xinhua | 11.04.09
The future is with the world’s youth, yet most American kids ride instead of walking or biking, use electronic devices instead of going outside to play, and are basically being raised to be the kind of environmental consumers that are damaging our world. Adults need to set the example, but we don’t. Even here in bush Alaska, where the effects of global warming are obvious, the kids seldom walk anywhere or engage in traditional outdoor activities.
22. Btok | 11.05.09
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Al Gore has been on the defensive over his financial motives for pushing for a cap and trade system to reduce CO2 emissions, arguing that he is merely putting his money where his mouth is, however, a startling revelation in a recent Newsweek article proves that Gore is only interested in solutions to environmental problems that line his pockets.
Al Gore himself admits CO2 is not the major driver of global warming.
If there was a solution to neutralize CO2 emissions that didn’t involve devastating the economy, taxing the citizens into oblivion, de-industrializing the west and giving government huge regulatory powers over our private lives, would Al Gore, Maurice Strong and the rest of the kingpins of the globalist environmental movement be interested? You can bet your bottom dollar they’re not interested!
One of Gore’s global warming advisors, CEO Timothy LaSalle, told Gore’s team that CO2 emissions could be neutralized completely by clever use of agriculture and technology, without the need for a global carbon tax or the use of cap and trade systems that Gore, along with people like the Rothschilds, Maurice Strong and Barack Obama, have a huge financial stake in promoting.
This is an outrageous interference in science for a political purpose. But what is the political purpose? Al Gore has called for stopping the use of fossil fuels and the complete restructuring of the economy in the US within ten years but when offered a chance to remove “harmful” CO2 from the atmosphere his team tries to change the science.”
That’s because Gore doesn’t give a damn about the science and he doesn’t give a damn about the environment. Like the rest of the vultures circling around the rich pickings of the global warming fraud, his only interest is in feasting on the corpse of the U.S. economy and the American taxpayer once he manages to ram though the cap and trade scam that will enrich the very carbon trading systems he owns.
Finding the economy a little tough going lately? Are you noticing that prices seem to be going up and up, even on groceries? Do you find that your lifestyle is becoming crowded with restrictions and new laws and taxes that have come out of nowhere?
Take a look at what has been going on and being planned for all of the world’s citizens by our Governments and the United Nations, give yourself a fighting chance decide for yourself and and research the facts after you watch the video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
23. S.W Maina | 11.06.09
Dave, I am an African and I can tell you even though we dont trust our leaders most of the time, I totally support them here. Not because I love them but because I know they know what is happening to their people. We have seen the ravages of climate change. We have seen death. We have seen conflicts over water, pasture for livestock, land for agriculture…we have seen it all. So forgive me if I get confused when someone who probably lives in a city where the average household has two cars, several computers, tens of light bulbs, eats highly processed beef products, consumes 100 liters of water per day and so on, telling me Africa wants to take away their hard earned wasteful lifestyle. Even when Africa says that they want Africa to develop and be like ‘you’, we are actually thinking of ending poverty without killing the planet.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
4. Unveiling C-ROADS and Watching the Africa Boycott In Barcelona « Climate Interactive — The Blog | 11.03.09
5. Twitter Trackbacks for Why African countries are boycotting climate change talks | csmonitor.com [csmonitor.com] on Topsy.com | 11.04.09
6. Twitter Trackbacks for Why African countries are boycotting climate change talks | csmonitor.com [csmonitor.com] on Topsy.com | 11.04.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Carter | 11.03.09
So it takes African leaders to say the obvious. The rich (us) have to make sacrifices if we want to reduce emissions. Such an obvious thought, but no one in America is going to say it. We’re America, we don’t make sacrifices. The last generation that knew how to make sacrifices (those who lived through the great depression and WWI and WWII) are dying off. Sigh…