DAR ES SALAAM: EAST African countries, particularly Uganda and Tanzania and the European Union were at loggerheads just a few weeks ago.
This time, the disagreement was not over the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), but the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).
Climate change became a buzzword for nearly everyone who commented on the matter. Coincidentally, the debate revived an argument that had emerged about three years earlier.
In 2019, the 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25), one of the largest global gatherings on climate change, was held in Madrid, Spain, from December 2 to 13.
The meeting followed the 2015 Paris Agreement, which set a goal of limiting global temperature rises to well below 2 degrees Celsius.
However, achieving this target remains a challenge, as global emissions have continued to rise.
The Madrid gathering ended with a partial agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Greta Thunberg, a Swedish climate activist, captured global attention and emerged as an icon of the campaign to reshape environmental policy.
On the other side of the debate was US President Donald Trump, who had consistently criticised efforts to reduce emissions, even during his presidential campaign.
The two influential figures presented arguments worth considering.
While Greta emphasised scientific evidence that human activities are driving global warming, Trump reminded critics that human innovation has also improved livelihoods and made the world better than it was in previous centuries.
This was the polarity confronting the climate debate at the time. The two personalities represented much larger groups holding similar views.
Unfortunately, few voices appeared willing to occupy the middle ground and propose alternatives that would contain the environmental costs of development while allowing innovation and economic progress to continue.
Climate change has far-reaching consequences, including severe droughts, floods and rising temperatures.
Tanzania, like many developing countries, is among those bearing the consequences. Although its contribution to global emissions is relatively small, the effects of climate change are widely shared.
Limited economic resources also leave the country poorly equipped to protect itself against these impacts.
Tanzania currently has about 727,280.6 hectares under irrigation out of an estimated 29.4 million hectares of potential irrigable land.
This leaves much of the agricultural sector dependent on rainfall and vulnerable to unreliable precipitation.
The consequences have been felt in many areas over the years. One might expect these effects to undermine agricultural production significantly.
Yet production has generally maintained a positive trend, partly supported by technological advances and improved agricultural practices. These include the use of improved seeds and industrial fertilisers.
ALSO READ: IPU chief prioritises youth, climate change
Companies such as Bayer, Monsanto and Syngenta have contributed to agricultural innovation. However, manufacturing agricultural inputs can also generate greenhouse gas emissions.
This presents a difficult dilemma: restricting production without viable alternatives could reduce agricultural yields and worsen global food insecurity. Who will reassure coal miners in Kentucky that they can sustain their livelihoods without depending on coal?
Who will convince Minjingu Fertiliser Company in Manyara that fertilisers can be produced in large quantities and at better quality using technologies with lower emissions?
And are we prepared to convince Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that moving away from oil production could create alternative economic opportunities for Riyadh?
Climate mitigation must therefore recognise the different contributions countries and industries make to emissions, as well as their varying economic circumstances.
Without practical alternatives, opposing sides will continue defending their interests, while the world risks facing both environmental degradation and food insecurity.
Greta Thunberg’s call to hold politicians accountable is important, but accountability alone is not enough.
Leaders also need evidence-based solutions that address the environmental costs of economic activity without undermining development.
Even as the world works to slow climate change, it must find ways to keep economic progress on a sustainable path.
The question remains: Who can bring these competing perspectives together?
The Gretas and Trumps of our time must be brought to the same table to confront scientific evidence, economic realities and the need for workable solutions.
The post Getting climate change right appeared first on Daily News.