News / Africa

    Financing Green Fund Expected to be a Hot Topic at Climate Change Talks

    Analysts say agreement unlikely on fund to help developing countries adapt to hotter weather

    Darren Taylor

    How is the world going to finance the implementation of renewable energies in developing countries? “COP 17 will have to answer that question. If it doesn’t, it risks being branded a failure,” said Tasneem Essop, international climate change advocate for the Worldwide Fund for Nature.

    She was speaking ahead of the global summit on climate change, which begins in Durban, South Africa, Monday (28 November). Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meet annually, at gatherings known as Conferences of the Parties. Durban will host the 17th such meeting, so it’s branded COP 17.

    Financing Green Fund Expected to be a Hot Topic at Climate Change Talks
    Financing Green Fund Expected to be a Hot Topic at Climate Change Talks

    “If we are to move towards a healthier planet, the Green Climate Fund must become operational in Durban,” said Essop, a veteran of several such summits and a former provincial environment minister in South Africa.

    Zambian environmental engineer Alex Simalabwi, who works for the Global Water Partnership in Stockholm, said, “It won’t help us much if only the richer countries implement cleaner energies and the poorer countries continue to burn coal. If we’re to save the planet, developing countries must also establish clean power sources. But for this, they’re going to need a lot of money – money that especially the smaller nations don’t have….”

    ‘Mirage’ of funding

    At the COP talks in Cancun, Mexico, last year, there was international consensus on the Green Climate Fund to help developing countries begin to move away from the harmful practice of burning coal for energy.

    Coal pollutes the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, and scientists say this is causing global temperatures to rise with devastating results, such as floods, droughts, heat waves and corresponding food shortages and food price increases.

    The fund, it was agreed, would raise and disburse $100 billion a year to protect poorer countries against the negative effects of global warming and to help them build cleaner energy sources, such as wind and solar power stations.

    “The argument is that the developed countries, especially the United States and Western Europe, built their economies on dirty energy – principally coal. So they’re chiefly responsible for the greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, that are causing climate change,” said Olivia Langhoff of Greenpeace Africa. “Yet the worst of the climate change impacts are being felt in least developed countries. So there is definitely a strong argument for the developed countries to greatly help poorer countries to switch to renewable energies.”

    But the fund, said Earthlife Africa climate change project coordinator Tristan Taylor, is currently “nothing but a mirage. It’s yet to be filled with any money. It’s an empty fund.”

    “There’s no indication of how that money is going to be mobilized. What we’re seeing is false-start financing, not fast-start financing, as it should be,” said Essop.

    Economic recessions jeopardize funding

    Ahead of the Durban summit, concern is growing among environmentalists that economic recessions in Europe and the United States will prevent any progress on the Green Climate Fund.

    “We need to move forward despite the world’s struggling economies,” said one of the world’s leading environmental scientists, Lester Brown of the United States’ Earth Policy Institute. “If that excuse is going to be used at the talks as a reason for not funding a massive global shift to renewable energy, then we’re all in big trouble and future generations of people are in big trouble.”

    Essop attended preliminary meetings ahead of COP 17 and said U.S. negotiators were “disappointingly” not willing to discuss the issue of long-term finance for developing countries to invest in renewable energies.

    “We understand that what’s happening domestically in the U.S. at the moment is very difficult and the challenges Washington is facing,” she told VOA. “But we do believe that as a key player in these negotiations, the U.S. can at least be part of a discussion about future climate change funding. We need to know how the $100 billion a year that has been pledged by developed countries, including the U.S., will be delivered.”

    A new path to finance

    But if there’s no agreement around the Green Climate Fund, there’s an alternative, said Dan Ferber, a biologist and journalist for leading international scientific journal, Science.

    He recently published a book with American medical scientist Paul Epstein in which they examined the issue of funding for adaptation to climate change.

    “We’re proposing a large global fund (of $500 billion a year) to help developing countries make the transition to renewable energy – so it’s a very large investment – so that we can mitigate climate change and so that we can adapt to the change that’s coming,” Ferber explained.

    He added that the creation of such a huge fund had a precedent. “In the late 1980s the world established a global fund on a similar scale to switch refrigeration technologies and aerosols and such over to technologies that did not destroy the ozone layer.”

    As a result, said Ferber, the world no longer pumps toxic chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) compounds into the atmosphere.

    “A similar fund could be set up to fight climate change globally and help the countries that don’t have the funds to help themselves – such as many African countries.”

    The big question, according to Ferber, is, “Where does the $500 billion a year come from, especially in the midst of a worldwide economic recession?” The answer, he maintained, lies in an idea advanced by Nobel Prize winning American economist James Tobin to combat poverty – a “very small” tax on international currency transactions.

    Ferber explained, “Billions and billions of dollars of currencies are traded all the time. People in finance in dealer markets around the world basically gamble with currencies. Just (a tax of) seven and a half (U.S.) cents on every 100 dollar transaction would generate 500 billion dollars a year,” according to his calculations.

    He acknowledged that the world’s “big money traders” have opposed Tobin’s strategy, but said so far it has the support of more than 1,000 top international economists, including the U.S.’s Jeffrey Sachs.

    “It’s not pie in the sky,” Ferber insisted. “It’s possible.”

    ‘Unfair’ criticism

    In the build-up to COP 17, leaders of some developed nations have accused bigger developing countries, such as Brazil, South Africa and India, of not using their considerable budgets to sufficiently fund renewable energies in their countries.

    Essop is convinced such criticism is unfair. “Many of these countries have, at a domestic level, put in place policy frameworks or strategies to start transitioning to low carbon economies. In some cases they don’t just have plans but have taken some exciting mitigation actions. These actions involve combating deforestation and reducing emissions from their energy sectors.”

    International energy analysts say renewable energy in Brazil, for example, now accounts for more than 85 percent of domestically produced power used in the country, which also plans to invest six billion dollars in wind power in the next two years.

    In the days leading up to the Durban gathering, the South African government, which is the host, has released its Green Economy Accord.

    Many countries have developed their economies using coal.
    Many countries have developed their economies using coal.

    South Africa is the world’s 14th biggest carbon polluter; it burns about 125 million tons of coal a year to drive its economy and it gets about 90 percent of its energy needs from coal.

    The accord pledges that South Africa will reduce carbon emissions “absolutely” by 2036. It’ll achieve this, it says, by injecting billions of rand into green economy activities.

    Essop said, “Some bigger developing countries like South Africa are doing all this while many of their people are trapped in poverty. They’re clearly making big sacrifices to fight climate change. They’re doing this without an international agreement (forcing them to do so) and without the kinds of financial support that are actually needed to conduct these actions.”

    She added, “A lot of that ambition can be increased if we did see a global agreement on climate change being reached and if we did see financial support being forthcoming.”

    But Greenpeace’s Olivia Langhoff said while some larger developing countries, such as India and South Africa, have in recent times made “all the right noises” about lowering their greenhouse gas emissions, they’ve done relatively little to actually implement more environmentally friendly energy strategies.

    Langhoff doubts that South Africa’s promise to phase out coal burning within the next 25 years will be realized. She asked, “How does Pretoria intend to do this when it is right at this moment building new coal-fired power stations?”

    South Africa’s state power company, Eskom, acknowledged that two power stations it’s currently building will be driven by coal, and that they’re unlikely to be the last coal burning energy plants to be constructed.

    Africa must act

    Kenyan ecological economist Kevin Chika Urama agreed that most African countries “just talk but don’t walk” when it comes to taking action to adapt to climate change. He insisted that they could do much more, despite their lack of development and small budgets.

    Urama is the coauthor of an internationally acclaimed study into the impacts of climate change on Africa.

    He pointed out that African countries agreed in 2006, under the African Union, to invest at least one percent of their annual GDPs in scientific research and development. But, Urama maintained, “Our study has shown that only one country, South Africa, has even come close to one percent since then. It is investing 0.93 percent of its GDP in scientific research. Most other African countries are investing below 0.5 percent. And because of that, we don’t have the capacity to develop the technologies to adapt to climate change.”

    He said African scientists have the skills to help insulate the continent against climate change but not the necessary support from their governments.

    “I know of high level technologies for harvesting energy from the sun that have been developed in Africa, but they are confined to tiny parts of the continent. That’s because we don’t have the arrangements in place to facilitate such technological transfer between countries, or the political will to invest in bigger production of such energies,” said Urama.

    The economist also highlighted projects that are gathering solar energy in North Africa and the Sahara desert – to satisfy some of Europe’s energy needs. “But Africa is not wising up to harnessing such technologies for its own people,” Urama commented.

    He insisted, “African countries don’t need a big global fund to at least begin investing in such technologies. They don’t need such a fund to at least begin fulfilling their commitments to investing a small part of their GDPs in science that could protect Africa against climate change.”

    Urama added, “If Africa doesn’t start doing things for itself right now, even if it’s on a small scale, it will slide backwards even more. And then by the time something like the Green Climate Fund kicks in, much of the continent will already have been severely damaged by climate change and won’t be able to bounce back.”

    How is the world going to finance the implementation of renewable energies in developing countries? “COP 17 will have to answer that question. If it doesn’t, it risks being branded a failure,” said Tasneem Essop, international climate change advocate for the Worldwide Fund for Nature.

    She was speaking ahead of the global summit on climate change, which begins in Durban, South Africa, Monday (28 November). Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meet annually, at gatherings known as Conferences of the Parties. Durban will host the 17th such meeting, so it’s branded COP 17.

    “If we are to move towards a healthier planet, the Green Climate Fund must become operational in Durban,” said Essop, a veteran of several such summits and a former provincial environment minister in South Africa.

    Zambian environmental engineer Alex Simalabwi, who works for the Global Water Partnership in Stockholm, said, “It won’t help us much if only the richer countries implement cleaner energies and the poorer countries continue to burn coal. If we’re to save the planet, developing countries must also establish clean power sources. But for this, they’re going to need a lot of money – money that especially the smaller nations don’t have….”

    ‘Mirage’ of funding

    At the COP talks in Cancun, Mexico, last year, there was international consensus on the Green Climate Fund to help developing countries begin to move away from the harmful practice of burning coal for energy.

    Coal pollutes the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, and scientists say this is causing global temperatures to rise with devastating results, such as floods, droughts, heat waves and corresponding food shortages and food price increases.

    The fund, it was agreed, would raise and disburse $100 billion a year to protect poorer countries against the negative effects of global warming and to help them build cleaner energy sources, such as wind and solar power stations.

    “The argument is that the developed countries, especially the United States and Western Europe, built their economies on dirty energy – principally coal. So they’re chiefly responsible for the greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, that are causing climate change,” said Olivia Langhoff of Greenpeace Africa. “Yet the worst of the climate change impacts are being felt in least developed countries. So there is definitely a strong argument for the developed countries to greatly help poorer countries to switch to renewable energies.”

    But the fund, said Earthlife Africa climate change project coordinator Tristan Taylor, is currently “nothing but a mirage. It’s yet to be filled with any money. It’s an empty fund.”

    “There’s no indication of how that money is going to be mobilized. What we’re seeing is false-start financing, not fast-start financing, as it should be,” said Essop.

    Economic recessions jeopardize funding

    Ahead of the Durban summit, concern is growing among environmentalists that economic recessions in Europe and the United States will prevent any progress on the Green Climate Fund.

    “We need to move forward despite the world’s struggling economies,” said one of the world’s leading environmental scientists, Lester Brown of the United States’ Earth Policy Institute. “If that excuse is going to be used at the talks as a reason for not funding a massive global shift to renewable energy, then we’re all in big trouble and future generations of people are in big trouble.”

    Essop attended preliminary meetings ahead of COP 17 and said U.S. negotiators were “disappointingly” not willing to discuss the issue of long-term finance for developing countries to invest in renewable energies.

    “We understand that what’s happening domestically in the U.S. at the moment is very difficult and the challenges Washington is facing,” she told VOA. “But we do believe that as a key player in these negotiations, the U.S. can at least be part of a discussion about future climate change funding. We need to know how the $100 billion a year that has been pledged by developed countries, including the U.S., will be delivered.”

    A new path to finance

    But if there’s no agreement around the Green Climate Fund, there’s an alternative, said Dan Ferber, a biologist and journalist for leading international scientific journal, Science.

    He recently published a book with American medical scientist Paul Epstein in which they examined the issue of funding for adaptation to climate change.

    “We’re proposing a large global fund (of $500 billion a year) to help developing countries make the transition to renewable energy – so it’s a very large investment – so that we can mitigate climate change and so that we can adapt to the change that’s coming,” Ferber explained.

    He added that the creation of such a huge fund had a precedent. “In the late 1980s the world established a global fund on a similar scale to switch refrigeration technologies and aerosols and such over to technologies that did not destroy the ozone layer.”

    As a result, said Ferber, the world no longer pumps toxic chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) compounds into the atmosphere.

    “A similar fund could be set up to fight climate change globally and help the countries that don’t have the funds to help themselves – such as many African countries.”

    The big question, according to Ferber, is, “Where does the $500 billion a year come from, especially in the midst of a worldwide economic recession?” The answer, he maintained, lies in an idea advanced by Nobel Prize winning American economist James Tobin to combat poverty – a “very small” tax on international currency transactions.

    Ferber explained, “Billions and billions of dollars of currencies are traded all the time. People in finance in dealer markets around the world basically gamble with currencies. Just (a tax of) seven and a half (U.S.) cents on every 100 dollar transaction would generate 500 billion dollars a year,” according to his calculations.

    He acknowledged that the world’s “big money traders” have opposed Tobin’s strategy, but said so far it has the support of more than 1,000 top international economists, including the U.S.’s Jeffrey Sachs.

    “It’s not pie in the sky,” Ferber insisted. “It’s possible.”

    ‘Unfair’ criticism

    In the build-up to COP 17, leaders of some developed nations have accused bigger developing countries, such as Brazil, South Africa and India, of not using their considerable budgets to sufficiently fund renewable energies in their countries.

    Essop is convinced such criticism is unfair. “Many of these countries have, at a domestic level, put in place policy frameworks or strategies to start transitioning to low carbon economies. In some cases they don’t just have plans but have taken some exciting mitigation actions. These actions involve combating deforestation and reducing emissions from their energy sectors.”

    International energy analysts say renewable energy in Brazil, for example, now accounts for more than 85 percent of domestically produced power used in the country, which also plans to invest six billion dollars in wind power in the next two years.

    In the days leading up to the Durban gathering, the South African government, which is the host, has released its Green Economy Accord.

    South Africa is the world’s 14th biggest carbon polluter; it burns about 125 million tons of coal a year to drive its economy and it gets about 90 percent of its energy needs from coal.

    The accord pledges that South Africa will reduce carbon emissions “absolutely” by 2036. It’ll achieve this, it says, by injecting billions of rand into green economy activities.

    Essop said, “Some bigger developing countries like South Africa are doing all this while many of their people are trapped in poverty. They’re clearly making big sacrifices to fight climate change. They’re doing this without an international agreement (forcing them to do so) and without the kinds of financial support that are actually needed to conduct these actions.”

    She added, “A lot of that ambition can be increased if we did see a global agreement on climate change being reached and if we did see financial support being forthcoming.”

    But Greenpeace’s Olivia Langhoff said while some larger developing countries, such as India and South Africa, have in recent times made “all the right noises” about lowering their greenhouse gas emissions, they’ve done relatively little to actually implement more environmentally friendly energy strategies.

    Langhoff doubts that South Africa’s promise to phase out coal burning within the next 25 years will be realized. She asked, “How does Pretoria intend to do this when it is right at this moment building new coal-fired power stations?”

    South Africa’s state power company, Eskom, acknowledged that two power stations it’s currently building will be driven by coal, and that they’re unlikely to be the last coal burning energy plants to be constructed.

    Africa must act

    Kenyan ecological economist Kevin Chika Urama agreed that most African countries “just talk but don’t walk” when it comes to taking action to adapt to climate change. He insisted that they could do much more, despite their lack of development and small budgets.

    Urama is the coauthor of an internationally acclaimed study into the impacts of climate change on Africa.

    He pointed out that African countries agreed in 2006, under the African Union, to invest at least one percent of their annual GDPs in scientific research and development. But, Urama maintained, “Our study has shown that only one country, South Africa, has even come close to one percent since then. It is investing 0.93 percent of its GDP in scientific research. Most other African countries are investing below 0.5 percent. And because of that, we don’t have the capacity to develop the technologies to adapt to climate change.”

    He said African scientists have the skills to help insulate the continent against climate change but not the necessary support from their governments.

    “I know of high level technologies for harvesting energy from the sun that have been developed in Africa, but they are confined to tiny parts of the continent. That’s because we don’t have the arrangements in place to facilitate such technological transfer between countries, or the political will to invest in bigger production of such energies,” said Urama.

    The economist also highlighted projects that are gathering solar energy in North Africa and the Sahara desert – to satisfy some of Europe’s energy needs. “But Africa is not wising up to harnessing such technologies for its own people,” Urama commented.

    He insisted, “African countries don’t need a big global fund to at least begin investing in such technologies. They don’t need such a fund to at least begin fulfilling their commitments

    How is the world going to finance the implementation of renewable energies in developing countries? “COP 17 will have to answer that question. If it doesn’t, it risks being branded a failure,” said Tasneem Essop, international climate change advocate for the Worldwide Fund for Nature.

     

    She was speaking ahead of the global summit on climate change, which begins in Durban, South Africa, Monday (28 November). Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meet annually, at gatherings known as Conferences of the Parties. Durban will host the 17th such meeting, so it’s branded COP 17.

     

    “If we are to move towards a healthier planet, the Green Climate Fund must become operational in Durban,” said Essop, a veteran of several such summits and a former provincial environment minister in South Africa.

     

    Zambian environmental engineer Alex Simalabwi, who works for the Global Water Partnership in Stockholm, said, “It won’t help us much if only the richer countries implement cleaner energies and the poorer countries continue to burn coal. If we’re to save the planet, developing countries must also establish clean power sources. But for this, they’re going to need a lot of money – money that especially the smaller nations don’t have….”

     

    ‘Mirage’ of funding

     

    At the COP talks in Cancun, Mexico, last year, there was international consensus on the Green Climate Fund to help developing countries begin to move away from the harmful practice of burning coal for energy.

     

    Coal pollutes the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, and scientists say this is causing global temperatures to rise with devastating results, such as floods, droughts, heat waves and corresponding food shortages and food price increases.

     

    The fund, it was agreed, would raise and disburse $100 billion a year to protect poorer countries against the negative effects of global warming and to help them build cleaner energy sources, such as wind and solar power stations.

     

    “The argument is that the developed countries, especially the United States and Western Europe, built their economies on dirty energy – principally coal. So they’re chiefly responsible for the greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, that are causing climate change,” said Olivia Langhoff of Greenpeace Africa. “Yet the worst of the climate change impacts are being felt in least developed countries. So there is definitely a strong argument for the developed countries to greatly help poorer countries to switch to renewable energies.”

     

    But the fund, said Earthlife Africa climate change project coordinator Tristan Taylor, is currently “nothing but a mirage. It’s yet to be filled with any money. It’s an empty fund.”

     

    “There’s no indication of how that money is going to be mobilized. What we’re seeing is false-start financing, not fast-start financing, as it should be,” said Essop.

     

    Economic recessions jeopardize funding

     

    Ahead of the Durban summit, concern is growing among environmentalists that economic recessions in Europe and the United States will prevent any progress on the Green Climate Fund.

     

    “We need to move forward despite the world’s struggling economies,” said one of the world’s leading environmental scientists, Lester Brown of the United States’ Earth Policy Institute. “If that excuse is going to be used at the talks as a reason for not funding a massive global shift to renewable energy, then we’re all in big trouble and future generations of people are in big trouble.”

     

    Essop attended preliminary meetings ahead of COP 17 and said U.S. negotiators were “disappointingly” not willing to discuss the issue of long-term finance for developing countries to invest in renewable energies.

     

    “We understand that what’s happening domestically in the U.S. at the moment is very difficult and the challenges Washington is facing,” she told VOA. “But we do believe that as a key player in these negotiations, the U.S. can at least be part of a discussion about future climate change funding. We need to know how the $100 billion a year that has been pledged by developed countries, including the U.S., will be delivered.”

     

    A new path to finance

     

    But if there’s no agreement around the Green Climate Fund, there’s an alternative, said Dan Ferber, a biologist and journalist for leading international scientific journal, Science.

     

    He recently published a book with American medical scientist Paul Epstein in which they examined the issue of funding for adaptation to climate change.

     

    “We’re proposing a large global fund (of $500 billion a year) to help developing countries make the transition to renewable energy – so it’s a very large investment – so that we can mitigate climate change and so that we can adapt to the change that’s coming,” Ferber explained.

     

    He added that the creation of such a huge fund had a precedent. “In the late 1980s the world established a global fund on a similar scale to switch refrigeration technologies and aerosols and such over to technologies that did not destroy the ozone layer.”

     

    As a result, said Ferber, the world no longer pumps toxic chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) compounds into the atmosphere.

     

    “A similar fund could be set up to fight climate change globally and help the countries that don’t have the funds to help themselves – such as many African countries.”

     

    The big question, according to Ferber, is, “Where does the $500 billion a year come from, especially in the midst of a worldwide economic recession?” The answer, he maintained, lies in an idea advanced by Nobel Prize winning American economist James Tobin to combat poverty – a “very small” tax on international currency transactions.

     

    Ferber explained, “Billions and billions of dollars of currencies are traded all the time. People in finance in dealer markets around the world basically gamble with currencies. Just (a tax of) seven and a half (U.S.) cents on every 100 dollar transaction would generate 500 billion dollars a year,” according to his calculations.

     

    He acknowledged that the world’s “big money traders” have opposed Tobin’s strategy, but said so far it has the support of more than 1,000 top international economists, including the U.S.’s Jeffrey Sachs.

     

    “It’s not pie in the sky,” Ferber insisted. “It’s possible.”

     

    ‘Unfair’ criticism

     

    In the build-up to COP 17, leaders of some developed nations have accused bigger developing countries, such as Brazil, South Africa and India, of not using their considerable budgets to sufficiently fund renewable energies in their countries.

     

    Essop is convinced such criticism is unfair. “Many of these countries have, at a domestic level, put in place policy frameworks or strategies to start transitioning to low carbon economies. In some cases they don’t just have plans but have taken some exciting mitigation actions. These actions involve combating deforestation and reducing emissions from their energy sectors.”

     

    International energy analysts say renewable energy in Brazil, for example, now accounts for more than 85 percent of domestically produced power used in the country, which also plans to invest six billion dollars in wind power in the next two years.

     

    In the days leading up to the Durban gathering, the South African government, which is the host, has released its Green Economy Accord.

     

    South Africa is the world’s 14th biggest carbon polluter; it burns about 125 million tons of coal a year to drive its economy and it gets about 90 percent of its energy needs from coal.

     

    The accord pledges that South Africa will reduce carbon emissions “absolutely” by 2036. It’ll achieve this, it says, by injecting billions of rand into green economy activities.

     

    Essop said, “Some bigger developing countries like South Africa are doing all this while many of their people are trapped in poverty. They’re clearly making big sacrifices to fight climate change. They’re doing this without an international agreement (forcing them to do so) and without the kinds of financial support that are actually needed to conduct these actions.”

     

    She added, “A lot of that ambition can be increased if we did see a global agreement on climate change being reached and if we did see financial support being forthcoming.”

     

    But Greenpeace’s Olivia Langhoff said while some larger developing countries, such as India and South Africa, have in recent times made “all the right noises” about lowering their greenhouse gas emissions, they’ve done relatively little to actually implement more environmentally friendly energy strategies.

     

    Langhoff doubts that South Africa’s promise to phase out coal burning within the next 25 years will be realized. She asked, “How does Pretoria intend to do this when it is right at this moment building new coal-fired power stations?”

     

    South Africa’s state power company, Eskom, acknowledged that two power stations it’s currently building will be driven by coal, and that they’re unlikely to be the last coal burning energy plants to be constructed.

     

    Africa must act

     

    Kenyan ecological economist Kevin Chika Urama agreed that most African countries “just talk but don’t walk” when it comes to taking action to adapt to climate change. He insisted that they could do much more, despite their lack of development and small budgets.

     

    Urama is the coauthor of an internationally acclaimed study into the impacts of climate change on Africa.

     

    He pointed out that African countries agreed in 2006, under the African Union, to invest at least one percent of their annual GDPs in scientific research and development. But, Urama maintained, “Our study has shown that only one country, South Africa, has even come close to one percent since then. It is investing 0.93 percent of its GDP in scientific research. Most other African countries are investing below 0.5 percent. And because of that, we don’t have the capacity to develop the technologies to adapt to climate change.”

     

    He said African scientists have the skills to help insulate the continent against climate change but not the necessary support from their governments.

     

    “I know of high level technologies for harvesting energy from the sun that have been developed in Africa, but they are confined to tiny parts of the continent. That’s because we don’t have the arrangements in place to facilitate such technological transfer between countries, or the political will to invest in bigger production of such energies,” said Urama.

     

    The economist also highlighted projects that are gathering solar energy in North Africa and the Sahara desert – to satisfy some of Europe’s energy needs. “But Africa is not wising up to harnessing such technologies for its own people,” Urama commented.

     

    He insisted, “African countries don’t need a big global fund to at least begin investing in such technologies. They don’t need such a fund to at least begin fulfilling their commitments to investing a small part of their GDPs in science that could protect Africa against climate change.”

     

    Urama added, “If Africa doesn’t start doing things for itself right now, even if it’s on a small scale, it will slide backwards even more. And then by the time something like the Green Climate Fund kicks in, much of the continent will already have been severely damaged by climate change and won’t be able to bounce back.”

     

    to investing a small part of their GDPs in science that could protect Africa against climate change.”

    Urama added, “If Africa doesn’t start doing things for itself right now, even if it’s on a small scale, it will slide backwards even more. And then by the time something like the Green Climate Fund kicks in, much of the continent will already have been severely damaged by climate change and won’t be able to bounce back.”

    You May Like

    Syrian Torture Victim Recounts Horrors

    'You make them think you have surrendered' says Jalal Nofal, a doctor who was jailed and survived repeated interrogations in Syria

    Mandela’s Millions Paid to Heirs, But Who Gets His Country Home?

    Saga around $3 million estate of country's first democratic president is far from over as Winnie Mandela’s fight for home overshadows payouts

    Guess Which Beach is 'Best in the US'?

    Hawaii’s Hanauma Bay tops an annual "top 10" list compiled by a coastal scientist, also known as Doctor Beach

    This forum has been closed.
    Comments
         
    There are no comments in this forum. Be first and add one

    By the Numbers

    Featured Videos

    Your JavaScript is turned off or you have an old version of Adobe's Flash Player. Get the latest Flash player.
    Chinese-Americans Heart Trump, Bucking National Trendi
    X
    May 27, 2016 5:57 AM
    A new study conducted by three Asian-American organizations shows there are three times as many Democrats as there are Republicans among Asian-American voters, and they favor Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. But one group, called Chinese-Americans For Trump, is going against the tide and strongly supports the business tycoon. VOA’s Elizabeth Lee caught up with them at a Trump rally and reports from Anaheim, California.
    Video

    Video Chinese-Americans Heart Trump, Bucking National Trend

    A new study conducted by three Asian-American organizations shows there are three times as many Democrats as there are Republicans among Asian-American voters, and they favor Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. But one group, called Chinese-Americans For Trump, is going against the tide and strongly supports the business tycoon. VOA’s Elizabeth Lee caught up with them at a Trump rally and reports from Anaheim, California.
    Video

    Video Reactions to Trump's Success Polarized Abroad

    What seemed impossible less than a year ago is now almost a certainty. New York real estate mogul Donald Trump has won the number of delegates needed to secure the Republican presidential nomination. The prospect has sparked as much controversy abroad as it has in the United States. Zlatica Hoke has more.
    Video

    Video Drawings by Children in Hiroshima Show Hope and Peace

    On Friday, President Barack Obama will visit Hiroshima, Japan, the first American president to do so while in office. In August 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the city to force Japan's surrender in World War II. Although their city lay in ruins, some Hiroshima schoolchildren drew pictures of hope and peace. The former students and their drawings are now part of a documentary called “Pictures from a Hiroshima Schoolyard.” VOA's Deborah Block has the story.
    Video

    Video Vietnamese Rapper Performs for Obama

    A prominent young Vietnamese artist told President Obama said she faced roadblocks as a woman rapper, and asked the president about government support for the arts. He asked her to rap, and he even offered to provide a base beat for her. Watch what happened.
    Video

    Video Roots Run Deep for Tunisia's Dwindling Jewish Community

    This week, hundreds of Jewish pilgrims are defying terrorist threats to celebrate an ancient religious festival on the Tunisian island of Djerba. The festivities cast a spotlight on North Africa's once-vibrant Jewish population that has all but died out in recent decades. Despite rising threats of militant Islam and the country's battered economy, one of the Arab world's last Jewish communities is staying put and nurturing a new generation. VOA’s Lisa Bryant reports.
    Video

    Video Meet Your New Co-Worker: The Robot

    Increasing numbers of robots are joining the workforce, as companies scale back and more processes become automated. The latest robots are flexible and collaborative, built to work alongside humans as opposed to replacing them. VOA’s Tina Trinh looks at the next generation of automated employees helping out their human colleagues.
    Video

    Video Wheelchair Technology in Tune With Times

    Technologies for the disabled, including wheelchair technology, are advancing just as quickly as everything else in the digital age. Two new advances in wheelchairs offer improved control and a more comfortable fit. VOA's George Putic reports.
    Video

    Video Baby Boxes Offer Safe Haven for Unwanted Children

    No one knows exactly how many babies are abandoned worldwide each year. The statistic is a difficult one to determine because it is illegal in most places. Therefore unwanted babies are often hidden and left to die. But as Erika Celeste reports from Woodburn, Indiana, a new program hopes to make surrendering infants safer for everyone.
    Video

    Video California Celebration Showcases Local Wines, Balloons

    Communities in the U.S. often hold festivals to show what makes them special. In California, for example, farmers near Fresno celebrate their figs and those around Gilmore showcase their garlic. Mike O'Sullivan reports that the wine-producing region of Temecula offers local vintages in an annual festival where rides on hot-air balloons add to the excitement.
    Video

    Video US Elementary School Offers Living Science Lessons

    Zero is not a good score on a test at school. But Discovery Elementary is proud of its “net zero” rating. Net zero describes a building in which the amount of energy provided by on-site renewable sources equals the amount of energy the building uses. As Faiza Elmasry tells us, the innovative features in the building turn the school into a teaching tool, where kids can't help but learn about science and sustainability. Faith Lapidus narrates.

    Special Report

    Adrift The Invisible African Diaspora