Recently, awareness about climate change has increased. Behavioural changes and micro-level and macro-level actions towards low-carbon economies are becoming more widespread, propelled by increasing scientific evidence and climate activism. As individuals continue to become more climate-conscious, climate-mitigation legislation has also gained traction. In 2019, the European Commission agreed on the European Green Deal, which included a recommendation to phase out new financing for fossil fuel projects in third countries. This recommendation was reiterated at the COP26 in Glasgow, by the European Investment Bank, and more recently by the European Commission in preparation for the COP27 in Cairo. Against this background, the European Parliament recently adopted resolution 2022/2826(RSP), broadly condemning alleged human rights violations linked with the planned construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). Alongside the human rights questions, the European Parliamentarians also argue that the project will both increase emissions and cause ecological damage—and so, in line with European climate policies, they argue that the project should close.
In this essay, I use the example of EU resolution 2022/2826(RSP) and the debates surrounding it to argue that whilst debates following this and similar resolutions supporting blanket bans on fossil fuel investments in low-income countries might be well-intentioned, a more differentiated view of the implications of these resolutions is necessary, especially considering developing countries’ needs and preferences. Blanket application of climate strategies developed in the Global North (such as stopping funding fossil fuel extractions in low-income countries) can be deeply unfair and unjust, and entrench more poverty than they hope to reduce. Moreover, these debates tend to focus on the policy needs of the Global North, with limited regard to Global South contexts and needs. This is especially significant in the context of aiming for just energy transitions, in which low-income countries are not left worse off without fossil fuel extraction.
Recently, awareness about climate change has increased. Behavioural changes and micro-level and macro-level actions towards low-carbon economies are becoming more widespread, propelled by increasing scientific evidence and climate activism. As individuals continue to become more climate-conscious, climate-mitigation legislation has also gained traction. In 2019, the European Commission agreed on the European Green Deal, which included a recommendation to phase out new financing for fossil fuel projects in third countries. This recommendation was reiterated at the COP26 in Glasgow, by the European Investment Bank, and more recently by the European Commission in preparation for the COP27 in Cairo. Against this background, the European Parliament recently adopted resolution 2022/2826(RSP), broadly condemning alleged human rights violations linked with the planned construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). Alongside the human rights questions, the European Parliamentarians also argue that the project will both increase emissions and cause ecological damage—and so, in line with European climate policies, they argue that the project should close.
In this essay, I use the example of EU resolution 2022/2826(RSP) and the debates surrounding it to argue that whilst debates following this and similar resolutions supporting blanket bans on fossil fuel investments in low-income countries might be well-intentioned, a more differentiated view of the implications of these resolutions is necessary, especially considering developing countries’ needs and preferences. Blanket application of climate strategies developed in the Global North (such as stopping funding fossil fuel extractions in low-income countries) can be deeply unfair and unjust, and entrench more poverty than they hope to reduce. Moreover, these debates tend to focus on the policy needs of the Global North, with limited regard to Global South contexts and needs. This is especially significant in the context of aiming for just energy transitions, in which low-income countries are not left worse off without fossil fuel extraction.
Recently, awareness about climate change has increased. Behavioural changes and micro-level and macro-level actions towards low-carbon economies are becoming more widespread, propelled by increasing scientific evidence and climate activism. As individuals continue to become more climate-conscious, climate-mitigation legislation has also gained traction. In 2019, the European Commission agreed on the European Green Deal, which included a recommendation to phase out new financing for fossil fuel projects in third countries. This recommendation was reiterated at the COP26 in Glasgow, by the European Investment Bank, and more recently by the European Commission in preparation for the COP27 in Cairo. Against this background, the European Parliament recently adopted resolution 2022/2826(RSP), broadly condemning alleged human rights violations linked with the planned construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). Alongside the human rights questions, the European Parliamentarians also argue that the project will both increase emissions and cause ecological damage—and so, in line with European climate policies, they argue that the project should close.
In this essay, I use the example of EU resolution 2022/2826(RSP) and the debates surrounding it to argue that whilst debates following this and similar resolutions supporting blanket bans on fossil fuel investments in low-income countries might be well-intentioned, a more differentiated view of the implications of these resolutions is necessary, especially considering developing countries’ needs and preferences. Blanket application of climate strategies developed in the Global North (such as stopping funding fossil fuel extractions in low-income countries) can be deeply unfair and unjust, and entrench more poverty than they hope to reduce. Moreover, these debates tend to focus on the policy needs of the Global North, with limited regard to Global South contexts and needs. This is especially significant in the context of aiming for just energy transitions, in which low-income countries are not left worse off without fossil fuel extraction.
L'artiste Wizkid n'était pas à Accra et Abidjan pour ses spectacles et a préféré Cotonou où il a presté dans la nuit du dimanche 11 décembre 2022. Voici les raisons…
L'artiste nigérian Wizkid s'était bel et bien préparé pour se rendre à son spectacle à Abidjan mais a manqué son rendez-vous. Le retard de l'artiste et une bagarre dans l'avion seraient à l'origine de l'absence, selon le promoteur du spectacle rapportés par le chroniqueur Ozo sur l'émission Showbuzz lundi 12 décembre 2022.
Un jet privé privé a été loué pour le vol de Wizkid, ses musiciens, ses managers ainsi que toute équipe attendait l'artiste à l'aéroport d'Accra. Wizkid devrait être là à une heure fixée pour aller prester à Abidjan et retourner ensuite à Cotonou à 22 heures. Mais l'artiste est arrivé en retard à Accra. En raison du retard, le pilote, évoquant les termes de son contrat, a refusé de faire l'aller-retour Abidjan-Cotonou. Une bagarre a éclaté. C'est ainsi que les fans de Wizkid en Côte d'Ivoire ont été délaissés.
Wizkid est monté sur scène à Cotonou.
A Abidjan, les spectateurs avaient déboursé entre 50.000F, 100.000F et 150.000F pour le billet d'entrée pour un spectacle qui n'a pas eu lieu.
De sources concordantes, le staff de Wizkid et le promoteur du spectacle manqué d'Abidjan sont en négociation pour voir s'il faut rembourser les spectateurs ou reprogrammer le spectacle.
C'est pas la première fois qu'un incident du genre arrive à l'artiste nigérian.
Un concert de l'artiste Wizkid en Côte d'Ivoire avait été reprogrammé en juin 2022. A l'époque, un membre de l'équipe de l'artiste avait été testé positif au coronavirus.
Adulé dans la musique Afro pop, le jeune artiste est auteur-compositeur-interprète.
Les succès de Wizkid vont au-delà du continent africain.
M. M.
Trois personnes ont été tuées dans un accident de circulation au petit matin de ce mardi 13 décembre 2022 à Bèyèrou, un quartier situé dans la ville de Parakou. Le bilan provisoire du drame survenu aux environs de 03 heures du matin, fait 03 morts et des engins calcinés.
Accident mortel ce mardi 13 décembre 2022 Bèyèrou, dans la ville de Parakou. Trois personnes ont été tuées. Un camion en panne et en stationnement serait à l'origine du drame.
Selon les témoins, le chauffeur d'une voiture TOYOTA Carina3 n'ayant pas aperçu le camion l'a d'abord percuté. Ce qui a déclenché un incendie qui a coûté la vie à deux personnes. Les flammes ont été maîtrisées grâce aux sapeurs-pompiers qui, selon les témoins, se sont dépêchés sur les lieux avec un peu de retard.
Peu avant cet accident, un motocycliste aurait percuté le camion en panne et en stationnement, et en serait mort. En plus des trois décès, d'importants dégâts matériels ont été enregistrés.
F. A. A.
Les services de sécurité de la Commune de Saoula à Alger ont effectué une intervention qui a abouti à la récupération des produits du crime d’une valeur de 32.5 milliards centime. On notera que les faits de cette opération remontent au début de cette semaine. Selon un communiqué dévoilé par la Direction générale de la […]
L’article Alger : un réseau spécialisé dans le blanchiment d’argent démantelé est apparu en premier sur .