Nigeria Content Online

The rise of crude
oil price in the market raises hope of boom time for producers of the
resource and fears of high-energy costs for others. Price thresholds
above $80 per barrel also make investment in some forms of energy such
as agrofuels appear attractive. For Nigeria, as the price of crude
inches up, so must the gobblers of so-called excess crude funds be
getting ready for the kill.

As the major
supplier of government revenue, the crude oil price rise must be
accompanied by increase in production to ensure maximum benefit to the
government and the oil corporations. This would mean keeping all oil
wells pumping at full throttle. It would also mean ensuring that peace
reigns in the oil fields, even if it means exerting maximum firepower
in search of a handful of renegade post-amnesty militants.

The popular spaces
in Cancun began to fill up over the last weekend, even as the climate
talks got ready for the home stretch. The environmental justice
movement believes rightly that fossil fuels must be left in the ground,
as their use is responsible for the release of much of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere. Leaving the fossil fuels in the soil would translate
less pollutions and less toxic compounds in the environment. It would
also mean rapidly transiting to renewable or less harmful energy
sources and into a post carbon civilisation.

Negotiators in the
climate talks are not listening to the clarion call to leave the fossil
fuels in the soil. What is music to their ears, however, is how the
carbon that is released when the fossil fuels are used can be captured
and stored. No, they are not exactly debating the best technologies
that can achieve this. So, what is on the table?

Climate negotiators
are seeking to make carbon capture and storage projects eligible for
carbon credits. Technologies for capturing and storing carbon are far
from being ready for implementation at the moment. There are also
issues over costs as well as doubts over their effectiveness. However,
leaving the fossil fuels in the soil is undoubtedly effective carbon
capture and storage. This option does not require technology transfer.
Neither does it require any capital outlay.

Challenging the
reckless nature of the oil industry, I was privileged to join a team of
nature defenders to institute a case in the constitutional court of
Ecuador against BP for their reckless activities and oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico. The case opens a unique way for holding corporations
and individuals accountable for their acts anywhere in the world. It is
also a direct action in tackling climate change. Two of the key demands
of the case is that BP should leave as much oil as they have spilled in
the ground and should stop deep water activities.

Will the world’s
addiction to crude oil allow the voice of reason to prevail? Will the
climate negotiators pause to review all the false solutions plastered
on the negotiating texts by corporate interests fuelled by greed as
well as the creed that the market hold the solution to every problem?

Assaults in the creeks

While the price of
crude oil increases and yields more revenue to both the government and
the oil companies, the environmental and social impacts are still
externalised to the poor communities. To ensure that oil must flow at
all costs, it does not appear to matter how much human bloodletting
happens in the process.

Over the years,
conflicts have been orchestrated in the Niger Delta – and indeed other
parts of Nigeria – either for economic reasons or for political ones.
When the late President Yar’Adua announced an amnesty for the armed
groups in the oil fields, popularly known as militants, critics doubted
that the amnesty would work. Others simply prayed that it would work.
And it did.

The amnesty
programme had some foundational problems because of the nature of the
conflicts on the ground. Usually, combats involve taking of territories
or for political supremacy. The fights in the Niger Delta is not one
for territorial control, neither is it for political power. It can be,
and has been interpreted, as largely opportunistic and as means for
capital accumulation.

However, it must
again be stated that some sense of political disenchantment is also
discernible. In all the expressions, the environment continues to
suffer; the local communities continue to be carpeted through ground,
sea, and air bombardments.

We remember what
happened to Gbaramatu Kingdom in May 2009. After the assault, 3000
women with their kids became refugees for months at a health facility
in Ogbe Ijoh. Now, with the latest levelling of Ayakoromor community,
Delta State, the same health facility has again become home for
displaced local people. That health facility is a clear metaphor for
the jaundiced development efforts in the region. If it were functioning
as a hospital, as it was designed, would it readily turn into a refugee
camp?

The resumption of
open hostilities says something about the amnesty programme. That
scheme was built on mostly accumulated military hardware and personnel
in the Niger Delta, and spending a tiny fraction of the overall budget
on training and reintegration of repentant militants.

Reports have shown
that many youth who requested to be trained and rehabilitated could not
be taken on because of some quota system that had already established a
ceiling as to how many could be trained. According to Dutch media
reports, companies such as Shell have hired some of the retrained
militants as welders and fitters. That also tells a story on its own.

But the real issue
of deep environmental pollution is yet to be tackled and unless the
environment is safe for local people to return to their normal means of
livelihood, any declared amnesty is a smokescreen and is bound to blow
up in smoke. However, when all is considered, we can submit that the
current amnesty has worked beyond what it was designed to achieve.