The article on climate change is both pedestrian and telling. You point out the fact that Africa is facing climate change not of its making , possibly true, but then highlight the USA's contribution to this problem. Also some possible truth to that again BUT you don't mention that C.C.P. China dwarfs the combined climate assault of everyone else in the whole world by many times.
Strange that we know there is man made change, that we know Africa can't stop or fix it but we don't know who the single biggest contributor to the problem is.
Not good journalism but more importantly dishonest story telling.
Thank you for your comment, Dave, and while we appreciate your perspective, we must respectfully disagree with your characterization of our article as "dishonest story telling."
Firstly, the facts presented in the article are accurate and sourced from reputable organizations, such as The Economist and The Lancet Countdown. The article highlights the disproportionate impact of climate change on Africa, despite the continent's relatively low contribution to global emissions. This is not a matter of opinion, but a well-established fact supported by scientific evidence.
Secondly, the article's mention of the United States' carbon dioxide emissions was not intended to single out or blame the US, but rather to illustrate the stark contrast between the emissions of developed nations and those of sub-Saharan Africa, especially because we have more readers from the US than from China. To be clear, the purpose was to encourage collective action and responsibility in addressing climate change, not to admonish any particular country.
While it is true that China is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases in absolute terms, it is important to consider per capita emissions as well. According to data from the World Bank, the US emits nearly twice as much carbon dioxide per capita as China. Moreover, the US has historically been the largest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gases, contributing significantly to the current climate crisis.
In conclusion, we stand by the integrity and accuracy of the article. Accusing it of being dishonest is not only unfair but also damaging to the important conversation we need to have about climate change and its impact on vulnerable communities.
Thank you for this response. I take your view with regards to all the talking points but do not accept your premise. Firstly carbon dioxide emissions , as a target for risk has been shown, scientifically, NOT to be a 'one size catch all' harbinger of doom. Plants specifically consume CO2 as a vital part of their process. there is more and more evidence to show that there is an increase in 'greening' throughout the world which would indicate that plant life is benefiting from these emissions. This is just one talking point.
Secondly your highlighting of Western contributions to the 'Problem' is standard Woke rhetoric in today's global discourse. Yes, historically the west contributed, per capita, significantly greater proportions to stated pollution and consumption globally during the industrial revolution and the early 20th century, because they were the only and largest role players. In recent years the East has caught up and surpassed these historical situations but now contribute far larger and wider impact on the measurable s you take as indications . And it should also be noted that while the West were the 'bad boys' in the past the current contribution, improvements and reductions to 'your' problem areas far exceeds the contributions from the Asian block. In fact the Asian Tigers have stated and continue to avoid any commitment to reductions or targets that might hamper their targeted development.
I am not saying that China, for example, is wrong to decide what they are going to accept in the way of limits and targets etc. this is for another discussion but if you are going to walk along a specific line then you should measure all situations against the same line.
My main concern is the fall out from taking the UN/World Bank/WEF standpoint on these subjects and replicating their mantra. If you look at the global power issue the current upheaval and future tragedy of following the 'path of sanity' laid out from Davos etc. is already wrecking havoc in unforeseen consequences globally. Sadly we are only now seeing some evidence but only because, I believe, no-one is looking.
Botswana for example is striving to appease the Woke mindset for their inclusion in the world forum by building solar power plants and other marginal 'renewable' unproven concepts while sitting on massive reserves of coal and gas that could power Southern Africa (SADAC) countries well into the next century BUT , no they are expending money and effort to implement, at best questionable infrastructure. Why? because to not do this would incur the disapproval of the Woke Cabal.
I read Baobab and other publications in order to keep up-to-date with current concepts, I also liked the idea that this platform is for the advancement of Africa for Africa's sake and whilst I do not agree with some of your talking points I do want to understand what Africa is saying!
BUT my appeal is to continue to resist the noise from the established Sentinels and to look beyond the vale and try to find the answers and opportunities for Africa. Yes we must be part of the global discourse but when we disagree with the content or premise then we must respectfully chart our own course.
The article on climate change is both pedestrian and telling. You point out the fact that Africa is facing climate change not of its making , possibly true, but then highlight the USA's contribution to this problem. Also some possible truth to that again BUT you don't mention that C.C.P. China dwarfs the combined climate assault of everyone else in the whole world by many times.
Strange that we know there is man made change, that we know Africa can't stop or fix it but we don't know who the single biggest contributor to the problem is.
Not good journalism but more importantly dishonest story telling.
Thank you for your comment, Dave, and while we appreciate your perspective, we must respectfully disagree with your characterization of our article as "dishonest story telling."
Firstly, the facts presented in the article are accurate and sourced from reputable organizations, such as The Economist and The Lancet Countdown. The article highlights the disproportionate impact of climate change on Africa, despite the continent's relatively low contribution to global emissions. This is not a matter of opinion, but a well-established fact supported by scientific evidence.
Secondly, the article's mention of the United States' carbon dioxide emissions was not intended to single out or blame the US, but rather to illustrate the stark contrast between the emissions of developed nations and those of sub-Saharan Africa, especially because we have more readers from the US than from China. To be clear, the purpose was to encourage collective action and responsibility in addressing climate change, not to admonish any particular country.
While it is true that China is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases in absolute terms, it is important to consider per capita emissions as well. According to data from the World Bank, the US emits nearly twice as much carbon dioxide per capita as China. Moreover, the US has historically been the largest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gases, contributing significantly to the current climate crisis.
In conclusion, we stand by the integrity and accuracy of the article. Accusing it of being dishonest is not only unfair but also damaging to the important conversation we need to have about climate change and its impact on vulnerable communities.
Morning.
Thank you for this response. I take your view with regards to all the talking points but do not accept your premise. Firstly carbon dioxide emissions , as a target for risk has been shown, scientifically, NOT to be a 'one size catch all' harbinger of doom. Plants specifically consume CO2 as a vital part of their process. there is more and more evidence to show that there is an increase in 'greening' throughout the world which would indicate that plant life is benefiting from these emissions. This is just one talking point.
Secondly your highlighting of Western contributions to the 'Problem' is standard Woke rhetoric in today's global discourse. Yes, historically the west contributed, per capita, significantly greater proportions to stated pollution and consumption globally during the industrial revolution and the early 20th century, because they were the only and largest role players. In recent years the East has caught up and surpassed these historical situations but now contribute far larger and wider impact on the measurable s you take as indications . And it should also be noted that while the West were the 'bad boys' in the past the current contribution, improvements and reductions to 'your' problem areas far exceeds the contributions from the Asian block. In fact the Asian Tigers have stated and continue to avoid any commitment to reductions or targets that might hamper their targeted development.
I am not saying that China, for example, is wrong to decide what they are going to accept in the way of limits and targets etc. this is for another discussion but if you are going to walk along a specific line then you should measure all situations against the same line.
My main concern is the fall out from taking the UN/World Bank/WEF standpoint on these subjects and replicating their mantra. If you look at the global power issue the current upheaval and future tragedy of following the 'path of sanity' laid out from Davos etc. is already wrecking havoc in unforeseen consequences globally. Sadly we are only now seeing some evidence but only because, I believe, no-one is looking.
Botswana for example is striving to appease the Woke mindset for their inclusion in the world forum by building solar power plants and other marginal 'renewable' unproven concepts while sitting on massive reserves of coal and gas that could power Southern Africa (SADAC) countries well into the next century BUT , no they are expending money and effort to implement, at best questionable infrastructure. Why? because to not do this would incur the disapproval of the Woke Cabal.
I read Baobab and other publications in order to keep up-to-date with current concepts, I also liked the idea that this platform is for the advancement of Africa for Africa's sake and whilst I do not agree with some of your talking points I do want to understand what Africa is saying!
BUT my appeal is to continue to resist the noise from the established Sentinels and to look beyond the vale and try to find the answers and opportunities for Africa. Yes we must be part of the global discourse but when we disagree with the content or premise then we must respectfully chart our own course.
Thank you
Thank you for the thought-provoking points you've raised. We appreciate your engagement with the topic and your willingness to share your views.