Climate change remains one of the world’s most difficult economic and environmental challenges, especially for developing countries like Nigeria. Environmental Management Expert, Ms Abiola Bashorun, argues that the debate is no longer about whether climate change is real, but about who should bear the financial burden of addressing it.
During the 2022 presidential campaign, Bola Ahmed Tinubu used a controversial metaphor to explain the dilemma facing poorer nations. He asked: “How do you prevent a church rat in a Catholic Church from eating a poisoned Holy Communion?” Though widely debated, the statement reflected concerns about climate justice, economic survival, and development in the Global South.
In the analogy, the “church rat” represents poor and developing nations struggling within a global economic system dominated by wealthier countries, while the “Holy Communion” symbolizes industrial opportunities such as oil, gas, infrastructure, manufacturing, and energy development. The “poison” refers to the environmental consequences linked to carbon emissions and climate change.
At the heart of the debate is the Polluter Pays Principle — the argument that nations responsible for most historic carbon emissions should shoulder a larger share of the cost of climate management. Many developing countries maintain that wealthy nations industrialized for more than 150 years through coal, oil, gas, deforestation, and heavy emissions before urging poorer countries to avoid the same path because of climate concerns.
For many African nations, the situation appears unfair. Developed economies achieved prosperity through fossil-fuel-driven industrialization, but now support restrictions that may limit similar growth opportunities for developing countries.
In Nigeria, oil and gas remain major sources of foreign exchange, industrial growth, transportation development, fertilizer production, and energy security. However, international financial institutions are increasingly reluctant to fund fossil-fuel projects, while carbon regulations and ESG frameworks continue to shape global investment decisions.
Despite these concerns, Bashorun acknowledged that climate change is real and already affecting Africa disproportionately, even though the continent contributes relatively little to historic global emissions. Across Africa, communities continue to face desertification, flooding, coastal erosion, heat stress, crop failure, and resource-driven insecurity.
According to her, the major question is not whether climate change exists, but who should finance the response to it. She argued that countries battling poverty, unstable electricity supply, unemployment, weak industrial capacity, and food insecurity are likely to prioritize economic survival.
She noted that Nigeria may need a balanced approach that allows the country to exploit existing oil and gas resources responsibly while investing in infrastructure, agriculture, renewable energy, and climate-smart development strategies.
Bashorun also highlighted growing opportunities in carbon-credit markets, conservation financing, climate-smart agronomy, and biodiversity protection, noting that forests, mangroves, and wetlands could become important economic assets if managed effectively.
She stressed that Africa’s future may depend on ensuring that climate action supports — rather than obstructs — development, industrialization, energy access, and economic sovereignty.
