The recent writing of the highly respected and admired David Hundeyin is characteristically provocative. He makes some crucial points, which are communicated in typical David Hundeyin style.

His sharing of the mandate given to him by Dialogue Earth in a spirit of full openness is commendable, as is his statement that the future of Nigeria and Africa should be decided by Nigerians and Africans themselves. This undoubtedly includes how we decide to use our hydrocarbons.

I have never interacted with Dialogue Earth talk more about getting funding from them. I don’t hold cards for them. However, as a leading African climate policy expert, I believe that much of David’s presentation is simplistic, bordering on sensationalism and has the potential to lead to a conclusion that does not promote a healthy debate on the economic implications of climate change in Nigeria and how we should best respond to to ensure Nigeria’s long-term economic sustainability.

David claims that the purpose of Dialogue Earth is to get the Nigerian government to kill the refinery. However, the letter he shared contradicts this conclusion, stressing that the primary objective of the essay is to raise awareness of the refinery paradox within the context of Nigeria’s energy transition plan and its commitment to achieving net zero emissions by 2060. This, in my view, is a very valid question and one that I have addressed and discussed in a recent article the Dangote refinery and Nigeria’s climate commitment.

While I wholeheartedly support the refinery for economic reasons, it goes without saying that its operation, like the Petroleum Industrial Act (PIA), poses challenges to Nigeria’s climate ambitions. This tension and how best to resolve it requires a calm national discussion. I have previously recommended that the Government should establish and adopt clear policies to help harmonize our climate change, economic and energy security goals.

These can include carbon trading, carbon tax, carbon sequestration, carbon sequestration and carbon storage. Many of these measures are outlined in Nigeria’s Climate Change Act and, if properly implemented, have the potential to generate billions of dollars for the government while promoting economic growth. And by the way, a thorough environmental and social impact study in relation to the refinery, as proposed in the brief David shared, is already required by our existing legislation and is essential for social, environmental and economic reasons.

David also makes several other false or at best unsubstantiated claims in the article. For example, I see nothing in the summary he shared to conclude that Dialogue Earth does not care about human poverty caused by exporting raw materials and importing refined fuel, that they do not consider the emissions generated from this process to be bad for the environment, or that their goal is to keep Africa poor. This kind of conclusion is reached by assuming that the only alternative to questioning the impact of refinery on climate change is to support the current state of energy poverty and the unpatriotic policy of replacing crude oil with imported refined products, which is clearly bad for Nigeria’s economy and environment .

A more nuanced and truthful position is that the majority of Western environmental organizations that oppose fossil fuel investment in Africa actively support alternative policies that promote investment in renewable energy and poverty reduction in Africa. They envision a clean Africa powered by renewable energy, which will give Africa a global economic advantage.

Where I think Western environmental NGOs often go wrong is that they push Africa too hard on green transition and leave the oil in the ground while not lobbying or fighting hard for enough financial support and technology transfer to develop renewable energy capacity in Africa. I have mentioned this issue several times in my discussion of the subject.

Several studies have shown that countries can increase their economic competitiveness by investing in renewable energy. Each country must consider, choose and follow a strategy sensitive to its energy needs. In this regard, I am confident that strengthening Nigeria’s local refining capacity under a frontier economic diversification agenda is the right strategy to address climate change, create jobs and grow our economy.

Climate change is real, and it is estimated to cost Nigeria up to $460 billion by 2050. It is one of the most important economic development challenges facing Nigeria and other African countries.

While investing heavily in wind and carbon capture technology, the UK has been using its coal-fired power plants more than ever before in recent years to meet high energy demand due to the extremely harsh winter. While China is the world’s largest solar generator, it is also the most polluting. In both cases, countries are trying to find a balance between climate change, energy security and long-term economic competitiveness. Both require risk analysis, scenario planning and common sense based on observable trends. Nigeria must also think and act strategically, rather than hiding its head in the sand.

The international climate agreement requires a rapid transition from oil and gas to renewable energy. The agreement calls for a wipe-out portfolio of renewable energy by 2030. Despite an abundance of solar energy, solar currently contributes less than 0.5 percent to our electricity grid.

Nigeria can gain a significant economic advantage by diversifying its economy and embracing the green economy. This does not require cutting all oil and gas production tomorrow.

David is clear that he believes climate change is a religious belief, and it is clear that this informed his interpretation of the letter he received and the comments he made. I do not agree that climate change is not real and that it is an issue that needs urgent attention.

It should be emphasized that the advocacy of various Western NGOs and citizens to encourage a rapid green transition is not limited to Africa but is strong and effective in their home countries. Climate advocacy and action is an important social, political and economic issue in the UK, USA and other industrialized countries. It is a major topic in election debates and a dividing line between the major political parties.

But Western environmental organizations like Dialogue Earth often make the mistake of promoting the same thing in Africa without thorough knowledge of the African psyche, history and economic circumstances. And in doing so, they risk being accused of climate colonialism, a phrase I have used and addressed in previous writings.

I respectfully believe that David should have simply declined the request to research and write briefs on the grounds that climate change policy and economics are not his areas of expertise.

However, by asking a non-expert to write an opinion piece on the Dangote refinery and climate change, Dialogue Earth showed a lack of intelligence and prudence and can therefore be accused of being naive, desperate and foolish. They have brought upon themselves this ant-infested wood, and they must now endure the inquisition, the guilt, the contempt, and the accusations that go with it.

However, it will be detrimental to Nigeria if David’s comments make it difficult to have a mature and science-based debate on how Nigeria can best balance its climate change and economic growth goals to achieve long-term climate resilience and sustainable development in a rapidly evolving global green economy adjustment.

By Professor Chukwumerije Okereke

Chukumweije Okereke is Professor of Global Governance and Public Policy at the University of Bristol’s School of Policy Studies, and Director of the Alex Ekwueme Federal University Ndufu-Alike Center for Climate Change and Development in Ikwo, Nigeria