NAIROBI WAS A SUCCESS

Personal correspondence to Benny Peiser (http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/CCNet-homepage.htm)

Will Alexander [ HYPERLINK "http://farns9.iserver.net/imanager/wizards/mm_compose.cgi?mpos=&msort=by_date&mrange=100&mbox=&send_to=alexwjr@iafrica.com" \o "Compose New Message: alexwjr@iafrica.com" \t "linkWin" alexwjr@iafrica.com]

[CSPP Note: WJR Alexander - Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria South Africa; Honorary Fellow, South African Institution of Civil Engineering; Member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994 to 2000.]

*****

 
Many of us in this part of the world noted the developments prior to the Nairobi Conference with increasing concern. Our concern was based on two grounds. The first was that actions to control undesirable greenhouse gas emissions (GGEs) would have disproportionate adverse effects on the economies of the African nations. The second and even more important reason was the fundamental error in the underlying science.

In 1970, thirty-six years ago, the South African Commission of Enquiry into Water Matters questioned the assumption that global climate operated within a closed system, i.e. that it was not influenced by variations in solar activity. Subsequent analyses showed that there is an undeniable, synchronous linkage between variations in solar activity and corresponding variations in rainfall and river flow in Africa. There is no evidence of adverse effects that can be ascribed to human activity.

Our fears included the Royal Society's edicts that were clearly intended to suppress all research that contradicted the views that global warming was the consequence of human activity. This was followed by the Stern Review that accepted human causality. Stern predicted dire consequences for humanity in the years ahead if drastic and costly action was not taken the reduce GGEs. This was followed by the UN Secretary General's exhortation at Nairobi to all nations to agree to implement the restrictions.

Added to all this was the tremendous pressure exerted by the international environmentalist organizations.
The EU nations were already well along the road to implementing these restrictions in their own countries and would obviously be upset if the major developing countries as well as the impoverished countries of Africa and elsewhere did not come on board.   

But then some EU nations made a serious mistake. They threatened to impose import tariffs and other measures against those countries that did not agree to impose GGE reduction measures. They failed to realize that nobody likes being threatened, least of all African nations that still bear scars of European colonialism.

AID FROM CHINA

There can be little doubt that China saw this as a golden opportunity. A week before Nairobi, the African heads of state were invited to Beijing. Trade agreements were signed and other forms of economic and technical assistance were offered. There was no incentive for the African countries to accept the onerous GGE control measures or fear the EU's reactions. Since then South Africa has entered into trade agreements with India and Brazil. Neither of them are Kyoto signatories.

South Africa has already announced that its long-term planning for energy production will be the construction of a mixture of nuclear and coal-fired power stations. No major restrictive GGE control measures are envisaged. 

The South African minister of environmental affairs, on his return from Nairobi announced that the conference was a success. Internationally, the priorities have been reversed from onerous prevention measures, to beneficial adaptation measures. 
An important point to note is that the implementation of adaptation measures to accommodate climate variability from whatever cause, will in itself provide employment and development opportunities for the poorer African communities who have few other sources of income.

The majority of the nations of the world, including the major GGE emitters, refused to commit themselves to implement harsh GGE control measures. This leaves the Kyoto signatories out in the cold.   

This outcome of the Nairobi Conference supports the views of those of us who questioned the basic science and the alarmist predictions based on it. It also supports our views that the imposition of onerous GGE control measures would place a disproportionate and unacceptable burden on the poverty-stricken people and nations of the African continent and elsewhere in the world..

THE WAY AHEAD

It is our sincere wish that Nairobi will signal the demise of climate alarmism and its threats to world trade and poverty reduction on the African continent.

The EU nations and the nations that signed the Kyoto Protocol will have to make some difficult decisions. There is no way that they will persuade South Africa and other African nations to accept the imposition of GGE control measures in the foreseeable future.

The questionable tactics of the EU before and during Nairobi have placed their own economies at risk. They made their own bed of nails. Now they will have to sleep on it.