Every January, the world’s most powerful people fly into Davos, Switzerland, wrapped in thick coats and thicker privileges, to discuss how the rest of the world should survive. The World Economic Forum is often presented as a marketplace of ideas, but for countries like Nigeria, it sometimes feels more like a moral courtroom – where judgments are passed, prescriptions are written, and the bill is quietly forwarded to the Global South. Last month saw this same familiar ritual, even with more intensity, as America’s Donald Trump peppered it with his so-called ‘Board of Peace’ that is devoid of a Black African piece.
But that is just by the way; let us look at the green face of Davos. Climate change was once again a major conversation at the forum. Not that this is new. What was different this time was the urgency in tone and the desperation in delivery. Climate change is no longer a future problem; it has arrived, uninvited and fully armed. Floods, heatwaves, food shortages, energy insecurity – these are no longer theoretical talking points. They are lived realities. This is indeed what some of us expected to hear, because you cannot discuss the economy without a green economy, and you cannot explore global risks without x-raying climate threats.
Yet, as the Davos conversations unfolded, one could not help but notice a familiar imbalance: those who caused the problem are still largely discussing solutions that others must implement. Presidents, billionaires, corporate chiefs and policy influencers gathered and weighed in on something they will never experience at street level. This means that the urgency in their speech could be contrived. Still, one hopes that the fire ignited at the panels should retain enough heat to outlast the Swiss Alps even as they dispersed and flew towards destinations expected to become theatres of climate action.
It is instructive to note that the central theme at Davos was climate financing, energy transition, and the global race to net zero. Wealthy nations spoke passionately about decarbonisation, green investments, and carbon markets. Developing countries listened politely, knowing full well that the climate crisis does not respect borders, but solutions often do. Ironically, the solutions travel slowly to those countries that actually contributed little to global warming and climate change but suffer the most climate impacts than the guilty nations.
Nigeria, like many developing nations, is stuck in a cruel paradox. We are being asked to leapfrog into a clean energy future while still grappling with basic development challenges – unreliable electricity, industrial under-capacity, unemployment, and widespread poverty. The same fossil fuels that powered Europe’s industrial revolution are now being labelled “dirty” when Africa attempts to use them to catch up. This is climate injustice wearing a suit.
This is why I expect Davos to be a truth-telling platform for the rich to see what they owe the poor, climate-wise. Indubitably, it should inspire innovations and financial pathways to clean development for these struggling participants grappling with the cold of Europe the same way they would face the cold faces of their hungry citizens when they returned from Davos.
There is this Nigerian reality Davos rarely sees. From the polished halls of the West, Nigeria is often reduced to statistics – carbon emissions, population growth, deforestation rates. What is rarely discussed is context. Nigeria contributes less than one per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet we are among the countries most vulnerable to climate impacts. Flooding in the Niger and Benue basins, desertification in the North, coastal erosion in the South, and farmer-herder conflicts worsened by shrinking arable land – these are climate stories Nigerians live with daily. Even if our politicians are not eager, or astute enough, to frame them in the proper climate context, it is still what it is.
At Davos, there was talk of “climate adaptation” and “resilience building”. For Nigerians, adaptation already looks like survival: communities relocating after floods, farmers gambling on unpredictable rains, and governments scrambling for emergency relief funds that arrive late, if at all.
One of the loudest conversations in Davos was climate finance. Developing countries were promised $100bn annually – years ago – to help them transition and adapt. That promise remains largely unfulfilled, endlessly repackaged, and creatively redefined. What Africa and countries like Nigeria need is not sympathy but structured, accessible, and affordable financing. Not loans disguised as aid. Not grants tied to impossible conditions. Climate action cannot succeed if it deepens debt and widens inequality.
Nigeria’s energy transition plan, for instance, requires massive investment in gas as a transition fuel, renewables, infrastructure, and human capacity. Yet financing remains elusive, while policy pressure mounts. Davos talks acknowledge this problem, but acknowledgement without action is simply diplomatic poetry.
One troubling undercurrent at Davos is the subtle framing of developing nations as obstacles to climate progress—too slow, too corrupt, too dependent on fossil fuels. This narrative ignores history and economics. Climate change is a cumulative crime. The atmosphere does not reset every generation. Industrialised nations built their wealth over centuries of emissions. Asking Nigeria to develop on a carbon diet without first fixing inequality is like asking a hungry man to jog past a buffet. If the world is serious about climate action, then equity must sit at the centre of the conversation – not as a footnote, but as policy. In fact, this is spirit behind the Just Transition Work Programme agreed at COP27.
Let us be clear, the developing world is not the enemy. Even with our burden of uninspiring political leaders and tainted bureaucracy, no rich nation has the right to deny the generality of our citizens their climate action support system flowing from the top.
However, we too have a lot of job to do. For Nigeria, Davos should serve as a reminder, not a roadmap. We must engage globally but think locally. Climate policy must align with national development goals. Clean energy must mean affordable energy. Climate resilience must translate to food security, jobs, and social stability.
It also needs stronger climate diplomacy – less applause-seeking and more interest-defending. The global climate conversation will not wait for us to get organised, but it will also not automatically protect our interests. For instance, Nigeria’s economy still depends heavily on oil and gas revenues. Alas, gas is not just a fossil fuel here; it is a development tool. Our insistence that natural gas should serve as a transition fuel is facing pressures from the Global North.
At Davos, there was growing pressure to shut the door on fossil fuel financing entirely; if that door closes too quickly, Nigeria risks being locked out of development, not ushered into sustainability.
Definitely, after Vice President Kashim Shettima and team returned from Davos, Nigeria still faces floods, power shortages, and rising temperatures. Climate policy still sits awkwardly within the current reform agenda. Fuel subsidy removal was framed partly as an environmentally responsible decision. But the reality on the ground tells a different story. Energy prices rose sharply, inflation spiked, and millions of Nigerians slid further into poverty. Climate responsibility cannot be built on social pain alone.
Thus, the Tinubu administration must approach climate diplomacy as economic diplomacy. First, Nigeria must insist on development-aligned climate commitments. Any climate pledge that undermines job creation, energy access, or industrial growth is politically unsustainable. Second, Nigeria must strengthen its bargaining position. Climate vulnerability should be leveraged strategically, not emotionally. This means better data, clearer project pipelines, and stronger institutional coordination. Third, domestic governance matters. Corruption and policy inconsistency weaken Nigeria’s credibility. Climate finance will not flow into systems perceived as leaky. Reform at home is inseparable from credibility abroad.
Read the full article here
