* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
A fair transition cannot be achieved by celebrating green development while sacrificing justice
Fatima Denton is director of the U.N. University Institute for Natural Resources in Africa, based in Ghana.
Trust is an essential ingredient in keeping climate action on the boil. For over a century, the global North has whetted a gargantuan appetite for fossil fuels that fed economic growth, purloining more than their fair share of the carbon budget in the process.
Today, these emissions are perceived as a burden that will continue to "roast" the planet if we don’t keep the global average temperature increase down to 1.5C.
But there are also development consequences to temperature guardrails, especially for the global South, which is left to "clean up" the effects of an emissions overshoot that is far beyond its capacity.
Let's keep an eye on trust for a moment – or rather, the absence of it.
A lack of trust in the climate debate erodes action. Action is critical if we want to whisk off harmful emissions that continue to disable livelihood structures and leave vulnerable populations steeped in the toxic mix of vulnerability and exclusion.
Eight out of the ten countries most at risk of climate change impacts are in Africa. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s sixth assessment report provides statistics of worsening impacts in some major hotspots, notably the Sahel in West Africa, where water shortages, reduced food production and shrinking biodiversity will result in losses and put fragile economies into disrepair.
Through its philosophy of keeping governments and organisations responsible for commitments, the Climate Crisis Advisory Group (CCAG) places high value on three actions that are central to climate action: reducing current emissions, removing emissions already emitted and repairing the climate.
The rationale behind the 3Rs – “reduce, remove and repair” - may appear hollow to the cynic when it comes to Africa — after all, what is there to reduce in a continent with a carbon footprint of less than 3.8% of the global total?
Africa is a region that urgently requires stable and secure growth — not only for the sake of global planetary health, but also for its own survival. Grounds exist to claim that the CCAG's "reduce, remove and repair" strategy is compatible with Africa's climate action approach.
Firstly, reducing emissions in sensitive climate sectors can become a pre-emptive strike which provides good returns on investment – and repair can be less onerous if executed with foresight and careful planning.
Secondly, as it strives for climate-resilient development, Africa does not have to reconfigure its infrastructure, recalibrate its economies, or revamp its technologies to embark on a green development pathway. It has a vast space to rehearse how to get energy efficiency right, especially given that more than 600 million Africans lack access to modern energy.
Reducing, removing, and repairing in Africa has implications for the mitigation ambitions of the global North.
Rich countries may remain oblivious, but emissions are immune to boundaries. Fugitive emissions from Africa in the latter's attempt to exercise its right to development might have implications for the mitigation potential of the global North.
For example, the EU's Green Deal mitigation efforts might lose steam if Africa is excluded from the bloc’s list of trading partners because it supplies goods from carbon-intensive industries. Blocking Africa also leaves equity high and dry.
Africa needs to trust that wealthier nations will lead on urgent mitigation. Not doing so will be short-sighted and leave Africa ill-prepared for a crisis that is both long and costly.
A carbon budget is about redistribution and equity. Poorer nations are not "victims" in this race — they have bold ambitions to slash emissions for good! It is important to build trust and act decisively on many of the transitional levers for mitigation and adaptation.
The Russia-Ukraine war is creating new forms of energy crisis – the rise in energy demand and costs coinciding with new narratives of climate justice.
African countries have argued that natural gas offers a transitional safety net to enable industrialisation and structural transformation. Due to the new urgency of keeping fossil fuels in the ground, fossil fuel-dependent countries may need to postpone gas exploration or investments.
More than 40% of global gas discoveries between 2011 and 2018 were in Africa, yet the continent accounts for only 6% of global gas production.
Africa has a chequered history with its fossil fuel industry, and critics would argue that oil and gas prosperity has only benefited a narrow elite. This said, achieving a net zero pathway will not be net zero if the transition runs on low justice.
A fair transition cannot be achieved by celebrating green development while sacrificing justice in the same breath. Climate action is not all about managing emissions control but recalibrating the debate to bring trust back to centre ground.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
