Nigeria Content Online

On closer scrutiny
of current debates, the disparity, or more exactly, chasm between
climate change impacts and climate change adaptation strategies and
policies becomes more and more apparent. Large and politically complex
nations like Nigeria, are having a hard time defining exactly what can
be done about what is known as global warming.

Nigeria is intent on achieving global top-20 economic status in the year 2020, i.e. in just nine years’ time!

Please, note that
the federal government insists on calling it a “vision”, which I think
is honest and non-committal enough, if only to keep the critics quiet
for now. Nobody can control a dream, and of course there are no
penalties for the visionary.

The day the Vision
2020 is baptised as “policy” and “strategy”, questions over detailed
frameworks of action with responsibilities and expected results,
milestones, etc. will emerge. At present, we must not be blamed for
indulging in the child game of building castles in the sand. But time
is running out as we fumble!

The UNDP Human
Development Report 2010, lists Nigeria in 142nd position out of 169
nations of the planet. Assuming that it is one of the benchmarks,
albeit not the most perfect for measuring economic wellness, is there a
belief anywhere in the possibility of jumping from 142nd to 20th place
in 9 years? What would the other nations of the world be doing during
this period? Bend over while Nigeria leap-frogs?

Which country on
earth has ever achieved 40,000 megawatts output in electricity
generation from 3,800 megawatts in a period of nine years, with
conventional burning of fossil fuels, decayed institutions, and a
massively corrupt, flippant, and insensitive legislature? Note that the
finance minister, Segun Aganga, said last week that 3,800 megawatts was
the highest ever capacity achieved in Nigeria.

This has to be
compared with billions of naira spent or wasted on energy since 1999 to
put things in their right perspective. Furthermore, kindly consider any
prudence in the prospective stationing of nuclear reactors in Nigeria,
and perhaps what percentage of the 40,000 megawatts is projected to
come from energy efficient sources such as solar, small hydro, wind,
and biomass.

In the 2011 federal
budget, the fiscal allocation to science and technology in Nigeria
stands at N5.1 billion, as against 53 billion in 2010, a cut of 97 per
cent! How then does Nigeria expect to acquire the expertise and
knowledge for managing technology transfer necessary in achieving a low
carbon and green economy, particularly when all the forests in the
country have been hacked down?

Additionally, the
global debate on biofuels and food security necessitates a relevant
policy position on climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Assuming that
renewable energy will constitute 30 per cent of future supplies, does
the nation possess the capacity to cope with such a transition and
manage the transfer of requisite technologies, not forgetting that it
will cost money which will not come from a foreign adaptation fund
alone.

There is this new
belief that the rich Annex 1 countries of the world will provide most
of the finances required to poor nations like Nigeria. What if, for one
reason or the other, they renege on their promise, citing other
pressing issues, like taking care of their own disasters, e.g. Japan,
or paying for the wars they are fighting across the globe?

If Nigeria is keen
on transiting to a ‘green economy’, it should not just be in view of
our national colours. It has to be based on sound economics and
resource management.