Category Archives: News Updates

The Society for Planet and Prosperity (SPP) in collaboration with the Center for Climate Change and Development, Alex Ekwueme University, Ebonyi State launched a nation-wide survey on sub national action  on climate change.

The survey aims to collect stakeholders’ perspectives on the impact of climate change on Nigeria’s 36 states and Abuja, as well as the actions taken by the states to adapt to climate change in their respective jurisdictions. The survey also seeks to identify the nature and breadth of climate policies and projects being implemented across the Federation’s states.

 The study is part of a project being undertaken by the Society for Planet and Prosperity (SPP), a Nigerian registered NGO, to help raise awareness of climate change at the sub-national level in Nigeria.

Professor Chukwumerije Okereke, President and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of SPP, stated that the initiative is envisioned as a first step to galvanise awareness for climate action at sub-national levels in Nigeria and ensure improved climate change action and resilience among state actors.

He stated that the project will assess the level of climate change awareness and action in the Federation’s 36 states, including the FCT, as well as the willingness of states to engage and increase their action, as well as the type of support they will require from national and international development partners in this regard.

According to Professor Okereke, there has long been a realisation that most climate action and policy in Nigeria has been centred at the national level, with very few actions taking place at the state level.

He stated that the initiative provides an opportunity to document what is happening at the state level and determine which states are leaders and which are laggards in climate policy and action.

Professor Okereke stated that the project will assess Nigerian states based on their degrees of climate action, as well as their needs and priorities, and will create an evidence base to promote climate awareness and action at the sub-national level in Nigeria.

 The also said that the project outcome will be of benefit to many people within and outside Nigeria including the Nigeria Governors Forum which has recently annciucned their intention to partner with various agencies to address the menace of flooding in their states and international development partners that will be looking to fund climate change action at the subnational level in Nigeria.

To participate in the survey, click the link http://bit.ly/3PSCXYJ

The Society for Planet and Prosperity is a Nigerian non-governmental organization devoted to advancing action to enhance environmentally sustainable economic growth in Africa.

Press Release was issued by Mr Timothy Ogenyi and Mr Wole Adegbule both of who are Senior Researchers with SPP

An expert in Climate Change and Development, Prof. Chukwumerije Okereke, has hailed the contributions of Nigerian academics in shaping the country’s long term climate strategy.

Okereke disclosed this in an interview in Lagos during the stakeholder consultation on Nigeria’s Long-Term Low Emission Development Strategy (LT-LEDS).

He said that, for the first time in the history of the development of major climate policy documents, the quantification of Nigeria’s current and future greenhouse gas (GHG) emission by sectors and the analysis of possible options for emission reduction to meet Nigeria’s climate pledges have been undertaken by Nigerians academics.

According to him, this analysis has been handled by the Nigerian Deep Decarbonisation Project team (DDP) led by Okereke himself.

He explained that the Nigeria Deep Decarbonisation Project is an innovative programme funded by the French Development Agency (AFD) which is intended to mobilise and reinforce the capacities of Nigerian experts and researchers to produce scientific analysis of low-emission development pathways

“There are several important differences between the Long-Term Strategies which Nigeria is about to conclude and previous strategies for Nigeria’s decarbonisation such as the Energy Transition Plan (ETP).

“One of the key differences is that the development of the LTS has involved extensive and sustained consultation with many stakeholders in Nigeria.

“Therefore, the product cannot be seen as a technical document written by some experts from the comfort of their offices. Accordingly, the LTS integrates the input of a broad range of stakeholders in Nigeria.

“The second, as I already mentioned, is that the modelling work that informs the LTS has been developed by Nigerian experts. This is quite significant.

“It means that the era of flying in foreign consultants to develop Nigeria’s long term climate policy is gone. Nigeria now has its own data base on which it can rely for future emission scenario development.

“As the one that is leading the modelling part of the LTS, I can tell you that what we have done is that for the very first time we now have Nigerian academics being able to provide the energy balance of Nigeria,” Okereke said.

He said that a closer observation at the country’s energy mix showed that the amount of emissions that were coming from the different sectors in Nigeria combined were more than what had been projected in the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) and the Energy Transition Plan (ETP).

He said that the reason is that “we went much deeper and broader, including accommodating emission from the maritime sector, from ships and even from tricycles (Keke).”

“And so, we are now able to say with some level of confidence and authority that we have the broadest and deepest and most comprehensive emission profile of the various sectors in Nigeria.”

The professor noted that his team found that a significant growth of emissions in Nigeria in the next 10 to 20 and 30 years was going to come mostly from the transportation sector.

He said the numbers were much more than was envisaged in the NDC and the ETP.

“Another big and troubling discovery is that emissions from enteric fermentations, that is emissions from cows, are much higher than originally thought.

“So, Nigeria will really be thinking hard about what to do with open grazing,” Okereke said.

The professor said that the country’s search for how to increase energy generation and access in ways that do not add massively to its emission profile remained one of the central changes in achieving sustainable energy transition in Nigeria.

“Our modeling shows that Nigeria needs to be able to produce about 250 gigawatts of electricity by 2050 in order to be able to provide access to everybody in Nigeria.

“That requires more than 10 per cent annual growth of electricity production between now and 2050 and the amount that is needed to achieve that runs into billions of US dollars,” Okereke said.

He said that the incoming government must think long and hard about how they could mobilise the vast resources needed to finalise Nigeria’s green transition.

“It is doable but this will require creative and innovative thinking as well as good strategy and policy will,” Okereke said.

By Fabian Ekeruche

First published in www.environewsnigeria.com

An expert in climate change and development, Prof. Chukwumerije Okereke, has called on the administration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu to prioritise climate change.

Okereke made the appeal in an interview on Wednesday, June 7, 2023, in Lagos.

The don, who is the Director, Centre for Climate Change and Development, Alex Ekwueme Federal University, Ndufu-Alike, Ebonyi State, said that climate change poses one of the greatest economic, physical, financial, and development risks to Nigeria.

He said that the call became imperative as the global community reflected on the environment on the week of the celebration of World Environment Day.

Nigeria swore in a new President, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who took an oath of office on May 29, 2023, at the Eagle Square in Abuja.

The professor noted that, during his inaugural speech, Tinubu laid emphasis on the rule of law, security, and combating terrorism as priorities for his administration, as well as the pursuit of prosperity and development through job creation.

He said that the president also indicated that he would pursue the effort to build more infrastructure, adding that he would try to unify the exchange rate and remove subsidies.

“Most of the things highlighted by the president were, in many respects, extremely laudable goals that should be pursued.

“For example, according to the most recent reports from the World Bank and other international organisations, Nigeria has the highest unemployment rate, so it is right that a focus on job creation should be a priority for the new administration.

“However, the speech of the President has one very big and glaring omission. This significant omission is the President’s failure to identify combating climate change as one of his top priorities.

“This is a very important omission because climate change poses one of the greatest economic, physical, financial, and development risks to Nigeria,” Okereke said.

He said that if climate change was not appropriately prioritised and tackled, that could compromise the ability of the President to achieve all these other laudable objectives which he has enumerated, including job creation, food security, and economic prosperity.

The don said that Nigeria was among the top 10 most vulnerable countries in the world and that climate change was already wreaking havoc on all aspects of the nation’s economy.

“It has been calculated that climate change as of today is costing Nigeria up to $100 billion. This represents about N15 trillion and close to 20 per cent of Nigeria’s GDP.

“Calculations show that by 2050, climate change could cost Nigeria about N460 billion. This is in the region of about N69 trillion and this could be between six to 30 per cent of Nigeria’s GDP.

“Climate change is already causing drought and loss of crop yield in Nigeria.

“In some cases, up to 50 per cent of crop yield loss is expected by 2050,” Okereke said.

The expert said that about 70 per cent of the Nigerian population was engaged directly or indirectly in various forms of agricultural activities accounting for about 22 per cent of Nigerian GDP.

“So, it is easy to see that without a concerted effort to tackle climate change, the new president will struggle to fulfil his goal to fight hunger and poverty in the country,” Okereke said.

He said that another way in which climate change was affecting the economic situation in Nigeria was through the floodings that had become recurring in the nation.

“Just recently, we’ve seen the number of deaths and displacements that have been caused by unprecedented floodings which had affected nearly 30 of 36 states of the country.

“Up till today, clear estimates have not been provided by the government on these losses.

“But we do know from the government’s own figures that the direct estimate of damage and loss caused by the 2012 flood is about $16.9 billion, which is about N2.63 trillion naira.

“Up to nearly 4000 kilometres square in the coastal regions of Nigeria will be inundated by a minimum rise of sea level due to climate change.

An estimated 53 million people in the country may need to be relocated, If the sea level rises to 0.5 metres.

“Places like Bonny, Forcardos, Lagos, and Port Harcourt will be at risk with vast amounts of property and oil infrastructure at risk,” Okereke said.

The don said that climate change was also contributing to desertification and drought, “which is helping to fuel insecurity in Nigeria”.

On the other hand, Okereke said that climate change posed a great opportunity for Nigeria.

He said that Nigeria was blessed with abundant natural resources like wind and solar, geothermal, and other critical minerals that would fuel the global transition in the coming decades.

“International climate finance is now worth over $3 trillion.

“So, by positioning Nigeria effectively to tackle climate change, the president can unlock billions of international climate finance and help to address the perennial challenge of lack of energy access.

“This represents one of the biggest constraints against economic growth in the country.

“If climate change is properly understood and tackled, it can offer Nigeria enormous opportunity to unleash the green growth transition potential that it has to create jobs security and help in the fight against terror.

“So, as we celebrate the World Environment Day, it is important to really bring to the attention of the president, the need to prioritise climate change in his agenda to make it the left, right, and centre of his administration,” Okereke said.

He advised the president to appoint someone with the knowledge, experience, passion, and technical know-how needed to situate climate change as an important, if not the most important economic issue facing Nigeria.

He added that such a person should be able to navigate and deal or negotiate with the international community in such a way that will unlock streams of climate finance that can help Nigeria to make a transition to a green economy and show leadership in this area.

By Fabian Ekeruche

 

First published by EnviroNews Nigeria

We believe the current approach to framing, designing, and implementing energy transition plans and partnerships risks jeopardising long-term and sustainable just energy transitions across Africa and among the broader Global South.

Current transition plans appear too narrowly focused on decarbonisation and global climate objectives, rather than looking to the broader goals of the economic and sustainable development of African countries. A poorly framed energy transition plan with restricted net zero emission aims could result in transformation (if any) that is economically and environmentally damaging, as well as technically redundant.

Last month, Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL) announced its collaboration with McKinsey & Company to create Energy Transition and Investment Plans (ETIPs) that would assist poorer countries in achieving net zero emissions by mid-century. Ghana, Kenya, and Barbados are among the initial target countries. Many more will follow. According to SEforALL and McKinsey, the programme was inspired by the success of their previous collaboration in creating an Energy Transition Plan (ETP) for Nigeria in the run-up to COP26 in Glasgow, based on which Nigeria’s president made a net zero commitment by 2060 at the summit.

Energy transition plans, partnerships, and agreements have become a popular strategy for pursuing just energy transitions in poor countries. While the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are part of the formal submissions under the obligations of Parties in the Paris Climate Agreement and they cover adaptation and mitigation measures across all economic sectors, energy transition plans and agreements are informed by bilateral country relationships, though supportive of the goals of the Paris Agreement. They also mostly target the energy sector.

Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) are a new financing cooperation approach primarily aiming to assist largely coal-dependent middle-income economies in shifting their energy portfolios to renewable alternatives. South Africa was pledged USD$8.5 billion at COP26 from a coalition of donor nations, including France, the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Germany, in a declaration designed to accelerate its transition away from coal as its primary energy source. The declaration led to the first JETP. Since then, a USD$20 billion JETP-styled pledge has been made with Indonesia, and other nations, including India and Senegal, are said to be in train.

While recognising that these types of energy transition arrangements can assist developing countries to accelerate ambitious climate action and reach net zero by mid-century, we believe the current approach to framing, designing, and implementing energy transition plans and partnerships risks jeopardising long-term and sustainable just energy transitions across Africa and among the broader Global South.

One key risk in the current approach is the positioning of energy transition plans as short to mid-term financial or programming endeavours, rather than long-term transformative programmes aimed at economic, social, and environmental prosperity. Energy transition partnerships between the Global North and developing countries should catalyse learning, leading to shared understanding and transformative action for system-wide energy transitions. This is especially true for Africa, given its diversity, distinct energy and economic needs, and long history of unequal engagement with Europe and the Global North.

An important component will be inclusive communication with key stakeholder groups, to find common ground and ensure the energy transition path taken is socially sustainable and equitable. This means understanding the numerous parties involved in current supply chains of fossil fuels and related services, other existing power provisions, as well as the implications of alternative renewable energy sources. It also requires a framework for evaluating common principles, including macroeconomic impact, environmental resilience, basis for and access to finance, reduction of inequalities and climate justice. Accurately identifying associated social and economic dangers takes time and must be part of the planning process.

The true promise of JETPs, ETPs, and ETIPs lies in their use as a foundation for serious national discourse and structured dialogue about medium to long-term transition visions. It is an opportunity to identify social, institutional, political, and technical imaginations, impediments, and stumbling blocks, as well as substantial lock-in dangers, and then to analyse where and how innovative financial partnership could play a catalytic and learning role in it all.

It is interesting that SEforALL and McKinsey claim the desire to expand the ETIP to other developing countries is based on the success of their Nigerian model, while facts and experience have suggested the need for a more cautionary tale. Many have observed that the Nigerian ETP was constructed rapidly, behind closed doors, by multinational consultants using proprietary modelling tools, rather than through a collaborative process incorporating national discourse and national expertise, to which the continuous energy policy debate could recur again and again. It is possible that the Nigerian government’s very limited success in mobilising significant money since the elaboration of the ETP may be partly attributed to the apparent lack of national debate and transparency.

The true promise of JETPs, ETPs, and ETIPs lies in their use as a foundation for serious national discourse and structured dialogue about medium to long-term transition visions. It is an opportunity to identify social, institutional, political, and technical imaginations, impediments, and stumbling blocks, as well as substantial lock-in dangers, and then to analyse where and how innovative financial partnership could play a catalytic and learning role in it all.

Furthermore, the financing of energy transition plans and collaborations must mark a watershed moment in climate finance history. Recognising that the global North is obliged to financially support the global South in their climate response strategies, requires a corresponding step change in partnership with renewed focus, additional resources and financing offers that are aligned with the fiscal realities of the countries being supported. JETPs should not be seen as technological solutions offering modelling engines, as SE4All claims in their announcement, to the exclusion of wider just transition concepts including energy ownership democratisation, local production, loss compensation and regenerative livelihoods.

Transition arrangements and accords must respect heterogeneity. Only when the concept, design, and implementation of JETPs are founded on awareness of the wide diversity of countries’ energy demands, as well as their economic, social, and political environments, can they then have tremendous potential to build societal resilience. The geopolitical landscape of finance and much else – both in terms of access and cost of finance, is becoming increasingly murky and volatile.

In Africa, for example, consideration needs to be given to the extent of oil and gas dependence (including contribution to GDP), level of energy access, possibility of alternative generation, skills and employment rates, and quality of the existing grid, which are just a few of the many factors influencing energy access. A keen focus on diversity will help avoid JETPs being framed as transferable solutions, which is presently the case. The focus must be on context relating to specific country situations (including the type of energy needs for cooking, heating, cooling, mobility, and agriculture; existing energy resources/potential; existing energy infrastructure; existing jobs and strategies for industrialisation; and the proportion of the economy comprising energy-intensive sectors).

Given the minimal share of past emissions and even in next decades’ emissions of African countries, Senegal and other LDCs would seem as good examples of where new fossil energy investments are compatible with the objective of global climate action and climate justice, provided they do not trap the country in a stranded asset.

More essentially, JETPs depend on national capabilities, support structures and access to domestic finance as well – particularly for middle income global South countries. It is essential that finance be a partnership of risk sharing, mainstreaming of justice across public and private, international and national financing streams.

In addition, JETPs should not be seen as a device for asking African countries to phase out fossil fuels. A phase-out may be optimal in some countries, but not in others where fossil fuels are not the dominant source of energy – but may be an untapped resource that African countries wish to explore. JETPs should not be viewed solely through the prism of debate about renewable versus fossil energy. Instead, emphasis should be on determining how diverse technologies and innovations may best suit the country’s short- and long-term development needs.

While key voices in Senegal, for example, consider gas as a transition energy, they do not want a situation in which the EU’s de facto embargo on the use of natural gas in Africa stifles development of renewable energies. They believe proceeds from gas extraction should instead be used to gradually fund transition to sustainable energy. And the debate on gas development becoming stranded assets needs to be held with regards to the specific Senegalese situation.

Given the minimal share of past emissions and even in next decades’ emissions of African countries, Senegal and other LDCs would seem as good examples of where new fossil energy investments are compatible with the objective of global climate action and climate justice, provided they do not trap the country in a stranded asset.

Current transition plans appear too narrowly focused on decarbonisation and global climate objectives, rather than looking to the broader goals of the economic and sustainable development of African countries. A poorly framed energy transition plan with restricted net zero emission aims could result in transformation (if any) that is economically and environmentally damaging, as well as technically redundant.

Chukwumerije Okereke is the Director of the Centre for Climate Change and Development, Alex Ekwueme Federal University Nigeria, while Sébastien Treyer is the Executive Director, The Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI), France; Chantal Naidoo is Founder and Executive Director, Rabia Transitions Initiative, South Africa; Youba Sokona is Special Advisor for Sustainable Development at the South Centre, Geneva, Switzerland; Ann Kingiri is the Director, Research and Innovation at the African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Kenya; and Elisabeth Hege is Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) France.

---

First published in Premium Times

By Chukwumerije Okereke

Dr. Okereke is director of the Center for Climate Change and Development at Alex Ekwueme Federal University in Nigeria.

Several environmentalists last year presented Africa’s leading climate negotiators with a bold idea: A technology called solar geoengineering could protect their countries from the worst effects of climate change, they said. While insisting they were impartial, representatives from the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative said that these technologies, which claim to be able to re-engineer the climate itself, either by dimming the sun’s rays or reflecting sunlight away from the earth, could quickly and cheaply turn the tide of dangerously rising temperatures — and that poor countries might have the most to gain.

It wasn’t the first time Westerners have tried to persuade Africans that solar engineering projects may be in our best interest. And it won’t be the last. In May, another international nonprofit, the Climate Overshoot Commission, headquartered in Paris, is hosting an event in Nairobi to help drum up support for research on solar geoengineering and other related technologies it says could be helpful in reducing risks when the world exceeds its global warming targets.

As a climate expert, I consider these environmental manipulation techniques extremely risky. And as an African climate expert, I strongly object to the idea that Africa should be turned into a testing ground for their use. Even if solar geoengineering can help deflect heat and improve weather conditions on the ground — a prospect that is unproven on any relevant scale — it’s not a long-term solution to climate change. It sends a message to the world that we can carry on over-consuming and polluting because we will be able to engineer our way out of the problem.

The solar engineering technology attracting the most attention would use balloons or aircraft to spray large quantities of aerosols — tiny particles of, for example, sulfur dioxide or engineered nanoparticles — into the stratosphere to dim the sunlight. It’s called solar radiation management and it’s highly speculative.Without using the whole earth as a laboratory, it’s impossible to know whether it would dim anything, let alone how it would affect ecosystems, people and the global climate.

Other proposed techniques include covering deserts with plastic; genetically engineering plants to have brighter, more reflective leaves; creating or making clouds whiter; and deploying millions of mirrors in space. The point of all of them is to counter warming by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet and reflecting it back to the stratosphere.

Africa is already suffering the effects of climate change, such as drought, floods and erratic weather. And while geoengineering advocates see these technologies as a solution to such problems, the technologies run the danger of upsetting local and regional weather patterns — intensifying drought or flooding, for example, or disrupting monsoon cycles. And the long-term impact on regional climate and seasons is still largely unknown. Millions, perhaps billions, of people’s livelihoods could be undermined.
These technologies would also theoretically need to be deployed essentially forever to keep warming at bay. Stopping would unleash the suppressed warming of the carbon dioxide still accumulating in the atmosphere in a temperature spike known as “termination shock.” One study found that the temperature change after ending solar radiation management could be up to four times as large as what’s being caused by climate change itself.

The other risk is that geoengineering will divert attention and investments from building renewable energy and other climate solutions in Africa. The continent has received only 2 percent of global investments in renewable energy in the last two decades, and the lack of access to capital is perhaps the biggest obstacle for countries that would like to cut down on fossil fuels.

Funding does not seem to be a problem for geoengineering researchers, however, particularly those in the United States. The Harvard Solar Geoengineering Research Program has been expanding rapidly, supported by Bill Gates and philanthropists from Silicon Valley, while George Soros recently announced his intention to back solar geoengineering projects in the Arctic. The University of Chicago has also this month announced the creation of the Climate Systems Engineering Initiative to partner with national labs to explore these and other strategies.

But should we even be studying geoengineering at all? More than 400 senior climate scientists and scholars from around the world have called for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering. If it goes before the United Nations, it could result in a ban on real-world research on this technology.

Regardless, advocates have tried to entice African governments by offering to fund research projects, claiming that more research will shed more light on the dangers and benefits of the technology. One such organization, the Degrees Initiative, says its mission is to put “developing countries at the center” of the discussion around solar radiation management. But this just appears to be a way of trying to make Africa a test case for an unproven technology. Indeed more studies into this hypothetical solution look like steps toward development and a slippery slope to eventual deployment.

A striking example of rogue solar geoengineering is the case of the American start-up Make Sunsets, which recently launched balloons from Mexico to inject sulfur into the atmosphere with the claim this would offset carbon emissions. Data on the balloons’ final location, what happened with the released particles and any impact on warming were never made public.

The Mexican government was unaware of the exercise until after the fact, at which point officials swiftly announced a ban on solar geoengineering activities. The decision to test the technology without permission or notice was reckless, and the decision to do it in Latin America echoed some of the worst aspects of colonialism.

African nations should strongly resist letting their territories be used for experimental exercises like this. And they must join efforts to strengthen the de facto moratorium (under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity) on the development and deployment of these technologies. The technologies are potentially dangerous, and a major distraction from the real change that we all know wealthier nations need to make if we have a hope of outrunning climate devastation.

Chukwumerije Okereke is director of the Center for Climate Change and Development at Alex Ekwueme Federal University in Nigeria.

First Published in New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/18/opinion/geoengineering-climate-change-technology-africa.html