It is apt that drought, floods, famine and other disasters continue to be felt even as the Glasgow Climate Summit (COP26) has been held. This is helping emphasise that there’s no end in sight just yet and that it could get worse if the pledges already endorsed at the summit don’t materialise. It is apt therefore because there’s not much time. It’s perhaps not unexpected to suggest this, as a bad situation must get worse if nothing is done. It is something else, however, if you give a definite date. So it is that what might be one of the most emphatic information to be gleaned from it all is that the world has only 11 years left before humanity reaches catastrophic climate change. Only 11 years. This is according to the Global Carbon Budget report, a joint project of researchers from institutions around the world. The project has since 2015 been tracking the amount of carbon dioxide humanity can safely emit if it is to meet the agreed limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius global temperature rise. And it does not look good. In just six years, humanity burned through more than half of its remaining carbon allotment. The Washington Post notes that to have even a 50 per cent chance of making the target, the world must immediately start cutting carbon dioxide emissions by about 1.4 gigatons per year, the equivalent of planting about 21 billion trees annually. The very comparison with trees is already discouraging. Despite forests playing a crucial role soaking up and storing carbon, planting so many trees annually is not only overly ambitious, while saplings can take decades to grow into trees to have significant impact. There are also challenges, as some studies have pointed out of the global tree planting initiatives such as the Bonn Challenge, as some new plantations are monoculture which negatively affected biodiversity and had little impact on carbon emissions. For this reason, the pledge at the Glasgow Climate Summit (COP26) to end deforestation is significant – which, nonetheless, is not to say tree planting cannot be effective. The whole point is that addressing climate change must be multipronged. Thus among other measures are pledges for finance, decreasing methane gas emissions, and especially also reducing carbon emissions. Thus one of the major outcomes at the Summit is the endorsement of the Breakthrough Agenda, aimed to encourage global private investment in low-carbon technologies. The Agenda is pushing what are being termed Glasgow Breakthroughs, which are essentially goals to achieve clean power, zero-emission in transport and steel production, and availing hydrogen globally as an affordable renewable and low carbon fuel “before 2030”. Also looked at, at the Summit are carbon capture and storage technology which holds great promise especially at sucking CO2 from the air and storing it underground or in cement. The technology is still relatively young and expensive, but there’s a will to bring down the cost and make it readily available. All said the picture cannot be complete in these pages without mention of Africa. It seems the annual $100 million to help developing nations including African countries cope with climate change first promised in 2009 may materialise this time around, though it may not be available until 2023. The help is much needed. But the delay shows how countries such as in Africa that have played little part in creating the climate mess still bear the biggest burden, even as they are expected to pull their weight in limiting emissions. The argument still stands that wealthier countries got their riches through industrialization, often through colonialism and other exploitation, leading to the current climate crisis. They owe the developing countries the support. But even as Africa is calling for better consideration by availing the long-delayed finance, countries such as Rwanda already have a national green fund they can draw from. In the meantime, the African Development Bank (ADB) together with partners has launched a $25-billion programme to help the continent adapt.
