Breaking Green

Resistance to Geoengineering in Africa with Dr. Mfoniso Antia

• Global Justice Ecology Project / Host Steve Taylor • Season 3 • Episode 2

Share episode

Ahead of a meeting of African Union Heads of States in Addis Ababa Ethiopia, numerous civil society organizations called on the African Union not to Geoengineer the African Continent.

The organizations noted that geoengineering is a false techno-fix that can only provide an excuse for the Global North to continue relying on fossil-fuel based energy generation in light of the ongoing climate emergency.

The organizations stated that  advancing geoengineering technologies distracts countries from their commitments to large emission cuts, responsible consumption and delivering over-due climate finance.

On this episode of Breaking Green we will talk with Dr. Mfoniso Antia of the Health of Mother Earth Foundation.

Dr. Antia is an environmental scientist, researcher and climate justice advocate – She holds a Master of Science Degree in Aquatic Pollution and Toxicology, and a PhD in Environmental Toxicology from the World Bank Africa Centre of Excellence in Public Health and Toxicological Research hosted by University of Port Harcourt.

She works with Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) as a Program Manager and the Project Lead, overseeing Health of Mother Earth Foundation’s learning spaces. Dr. Antia is also the Anglophone coordinator of Africa Technology Assessment Platform, a network to which Health of Mother Earth Foundation is a founding member.

She is also co-leading the Hands Off Mother Earth Africa Working Group on Geoengineering.

Don't miss an episode and subscribe to Breaking Green wherever you get your podcasts.

This podcast is produced by Global Justice Ecology Project.

Breaking Green is made possible by tax deductible donations from people like you. Please help us lift up the voices of those working to protect forests, defend human rights and expose false solutions.  

Donate securely online here



Or simply text GIVE to 716-257-4187



Steve Taylor  
Welcome to Breaking Green, a podcast by Global Justice Ecology Project. On Breaking Green, we will talk with activist and experts to examine the intertwined issues of social, ecological and economic injustice. We will also explore some of the more outrageous proposals to address climate and environmental crises that are falsely being sold as green. I am your host, Steve Taylor. Ahead of this year's meeting of African Union heads of states in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Numerous civil society organizations called on the African Union not to Geo engineer the African continent. The organizations stated that advancing geoengineering technology distracts countries from their commitments to large emission cuts responsible consumption, and delivering overdue climate finance. On this episode of Breaking Green, we will talk with Dr. Mfoniso, Antia of the Health of Mother Earth Foundation. Dr. Anti is an environmental scientist, researcher and climate justice advocate. She holds a Master of Science degree in aquatic pollution and toxicology and a doctorate in Environmental Toxicology from the World Bank Africa Center of Excellence in Public Health and Toxicological Research. She works with health of Mother Earth Foundation as a program manager and the project lead overseeing health of Mother Earth Foundation's learning spaces. Dr. Antia is also the Anglophone coordinator of African Technology Assessment platform, a network to which Health of Mother Earth foundation is a founding member. She joins us from Nigeria. Dr. Antia, Welcome to Breaking Green. 

Dr. Antia  
Thank you.

Steve Taylor  
Could you tell us a little bit about yourself and what brought you to the environmental movement?

Dr. Antia  
I got into animal environmental biology for my first degree. I had a few lecturers that were very encouraging. They were not entirely in the environmental movement space, but they did a few contracts and stuff here and therefore, you know, environmental impact assessment and that piqued my interest- afterwards. So I went to do my Master's in aquatic pollution and toxicology. And then for that did my PhD in Environmental Toxicology. And then I met Nemo Bassey in 2016. Yeah, 2016 after my master's, and he spoken, spoken in an open lecture somewhere. And I got to listen. And I wondered what what a man that is. And I immediately volunteered for his organization, and volunteered for a while, I think, a year or two. Then finally he invited me to come over and join the team. And I did. And that's how I started.

Steve Taylor  
Well, that's amazing. We interviewed Nemo Bassey, and he he's definitely, quite a force of nature is he not?

Dr. Antia  
Oh, yeah. 

Steve Taylor  
Earlier this year, there was a call by civil society organizations that advocate for climate and environmental justice for the African Union, to not geo engineer Africa, ahead of the African Union Head's of State Summit that was held in Ethiopia. In general, why did these organizations believe it was necessary to make such an appeal to the African Union?

Dr. Antia  
There have been efforts by the people in the Global north to try to sell the idea of geoengineering to Africans. This, this proposal denies or delays real climate actions and shifts the responsibility of climate change to the Global South, it also makes the Global North avoid taking responsibility of what they've done to know to to cause climate change. So Africans have been asked to adopt the values and practices that could, you know, have huge consequences on the continent. And not only the African Union, not only did we want Africa, you know, to know that there are civil society organizations who understand what's going on, and who are actually advocating against it. We also wanted them to give them the support and the ground to say no to the Global North and the interventions. So we believe that appealing to the heads of states in the African Union was going to make them see reasons with us to not back that or adopted geoengineering technologies that open letter actually was supposed to be an advocacy to save like a mini advocacy tool and awareness creation to for the ministers. We're hoping that, you know, we turn that there'll be much details or information out there for African negotiators to be able to compare the pros and the cons of the technology geoengineering, so that when they are when they are, accepting or rejecting or signing of anything they will do so from the standpoint of knowledge and understanding and not just because someone is asking them to do so.

Steve Taylor  
Do you think the message was heard? How was the response?

Dr. Antia  
So I'm sending the message was heard. But whether or not they will adopt it is something that I cannot say or whether they'll make decision based on it. I can't speak to that at this moment, but I am that the message was heard. We're not going to just end there. We're going to keep, you know, pushing and as much as possible to take seize opportunities out of any of these celebrations international or regionally, to keep advocating against geoengineering.

Steve Taylor  
With climate change, threatening devastating consequences around the globe. There's a lot of hope, by corporations and the global North being pinned on techno fixes or geo engineering. Could you tell us what geo engineering is in general, and what type of technologies are being proposed?

Dr. Antia  
Well, so geoengineering in itself is divided into two major technologies. There is solar radiation management, and there is carbon dioxide removals, and each of these - each of these two major aspects have or the sub sub components in it. So solar radiation management, just simply refers to proposal to reflect or block solar radiation to reduce the warming effects from the sun. So you have other technologies like the Stratospheric Aerosol injection, which covers the proposals to spray some blocking pollutants like sulfites into the atmosphere to hinder the sun's rays from reaching the earth. We have the marine cloud brightening, which is proposals to create very precise, nano nano sized particles of seawater and spread them into the clouds too. On the other hand, we also have carbon removals, technologies, which removes greenhouse gases from the atmosphere after they have already been emitted. So you have technologies like the bioenergy, carbon capture and storage, that's the what they call be a CCS, which is large scale interventions into the farmlands for us to draw down carbon dioxide into plants and soils to be burned and somehow stored away. We also have have technologies like the enhanced weathering, which is a set of theoretical proposals to remove co2 by spread, spreading large quantities of selected and finely ground rock particles, on to extensive land areas or beaches or sea surfaces. We have ocean fertilization, you also have orders, including carbon capture, utilization and storage. We have direct capture and storage- DTSC says we have artificial trees, and artificial upwelling and downwelling. There is also ocean alkalinization, seaweed plantations, all these are target to targeted towards removing carbon dioxide or maybe other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere to somehow reduce the effects of an impact of climate change.

Steve Taylor  
So those are the proposals. And on the face of it, they sound pretty drastic. So can we talk a little bit about a few of these in particular, and why there's the opposition. So solar radiation management that seems that it's going to be global? Who's going to control and manage it? And and are the effects of it going to be equitable for populations around the globe? Could you talk a little bit about that?

Dr. Antia  
Yes. Like you said, this, these are these are proposals that are going to be on a large scale basis. So first off geoengineering technologies are technologies that one cannot test in a confined area. There's no way you can say let's let's test, run it first in a small scale, and see what is going to happen and see the impact, and then, you know, compare the impact to the bigger population, you can't do that with geoengineering technologies. It's testing is going to be large scale. And so will the impact be. Take for instance, you're planning to test one of the geoengineering technologies in Africa. It might not just it's not going to just be a part of Africa, let's say just pick a part of Nigeria, maybe I started Nigeria to say, Okay, let's test this technology here. It's not just going to end there. It's something in the atmosphere, it's going to be far reaching, the impact is going to be far reaching. So that's a lot of things and then there's also that concern of who is who is controlling it. Most of these technologies are going to require military grade kind of technologies, and people who are advocating against it are concerned because, if you have a group of people able to control the way they're able to touch one button or press something to be able to do this and that, who said they will not weaponize it? Who says that those things cannot be weaponized and then use against the the less technologically advanced countries. So that's a lot of major concernt to, there's also the risk of disrupting local regional weather patterns. And for that, for the imbalanced climate, we potentially catastrophic traffic in the effects for Africa, including on water availability, and food production. The adverse side effects could also cause more regional and international conflict. Geoengineering technology also supports the postponement of real climate action. I think this is one of the major reasons why people are advocating against it. So instead of allowing people to face what needs to be done to put a stop to the impact of climate change, or you're proposing solutions that are temporary, the techno fixes like to mention that they are temporary solutions that only enables the polluters to continue polluting, while avoiding to take responsibility. These are these technologies, also diverts finances from real systems change, and community led solutions, which will - future generation standards. So it looks like we what we are proposing is to avoid taking responsibility to fix it now and push the responsibility or the blame to the future generations-

Steve Taylor  
who's who's making the PR moves on the African continent about geoengineering. 

Dr. Antia  
Mostly they are people from the from Global North are pro geoengineering, men or women who benefit from the system inequalities that of this institution. They're also majorly high polluting governments and maybe entities reinforcing these ideas. I mean, take, for instance, the United States is pro geo engineering. And recently they've been they've just started, they've just got the the five year research program into geo engineering. And it's funny to see people who is funding a five year research into geoengineering at the same time opening up new oil pipelines in Alaska. How does this How would you marry these two? If you're, you're looking for a way to reduce carbon footprint or reduce the carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere yet, you're still polluting. You're going looking for new oil pipelines in in your own community? And how do you marry that? So in general, this, this whole thing is just a way of trying to see ways in which they can tweak nature in such a way that allows them to continue to pollute.

Steve Taylor  
That's a very interesting point that some of those groups pushing the geoengineering are also pushing for more, more use of fossil fuels. One of the scary things I've been told about the particles in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight, is that if we increase the amount of carbon dioxide but reflect the sunlight, what happens if sometime in the future, we abandon that technology, maybe because of political instability across the globe? But there would be just an instantaneous, huge jump in the temperature, that we'd be creating almos what could be considered an atmospheric time bomb?

Dr. Antia  
Yes, of course. So there is that concern for temperature shocks. So if you if you're planning to find a way to deposit this, this, this carbon and other greenhouse gases somewhere and store them up somewhere, then suddenly something didn't go, right, because these technologies have not been tested and proven something didn't go right. And then you abandon them, of course, there's going to be catastrophic side effect. There's going to be temperature shock, and people are going to be abandoned. And the funny thing about this whole thing is that countries in the Global North may have one or two ways to be able to manage if such cases happen, but countries in Africa were not as equipped with things to be able to manage temperature issues like that. So recently, we're talking and then someone was talkng, was it Nimmo who was saying that, you know, that people are talking about 1.5, degrees pre industrial level. But the truth is that right now, in Africa, if you're going to continue, if you're going to even there, there are countries in Africa that will be will be already fried, if you have if the temperature is less than 1.5 degrees.

Steve Taylor  
Well, I've read in some press releases, claims that this push for geoengineering is a NEO colonial and Imperial effort by rich countries, corporations and elites to be able to continue polluting while shifting the burden onto the Global South, including African nations who are least responsible for climate change. Thoughts on that?

Dr. Antia  
Most people believe that colonialism in Africa must have ended in the past. In reality, it's it didn't. But say for instance, we stopped to believe that, oh, agree that colonialism and Africans are still enslaved with what we often call coloniality. The mindset, that mindset that makes them believe that whatever comes from the west is the best, whatever comes from that side, be it food, technology, clothing, making the average African person begin to abandon their food, their natural food, their traditional food, their traditional means of doing things, technology that we've developed in Africa. So pro geo engineering sector capitalizing on this mindset. So the moment you know that this person does not know, so it's easy to capitalize on that. So they are capitalizing on this mindset to relaunch. Yeah, so too, but like, I would always say, careful planning to recolonize Africa, starting with our food system, and you're capitalizing on the impact of climate change. So coloniality places more importance on knowledge systems and values in the West. And in central to central to this idea, I'd say, which is the for easy is the need to manipulate the aid rather than transform our societies and economies. There is a carefully planned, planned out strategy to subjugate Africa, so bringing generic it's one of those plans to continue to, to or to come to relaunch colonial colonialism. So yes, it is Neo colonial if  geoengineering is used, Africa will be affected fiscally if geoengineering is adopted, and it goes from the west who find a way in order to avoid liability. As common currently is the case with climate change negotiations. You see, they have since since since Paris Agreement, it's been a case of who wants to pay what or who is not going to pay what and there's been dilly dallying in in, you know, paid contributions as necessary to help with with climate adaptation. So this is going to be the case if the geoengineering goes, goes south or goes bad. They are going to avoid liability. This idea that Africa can lead in geo engineering is a dream of the West, and they want to use Africa as if the current figurehead again. Yes, this drive for geo engineering is Neo colonial, is just an attempt to re establish a stronger hold and control over Africa.

Steve Taylor  
Interesting that you mentioned food and traditional foods, do you see a parallel with what the so called Green Revolution decades ago, in the African continent?

Dr. Antia  
Well, I still believe that this with with with the way things keep coming, you know, year in year out, you keep hearing new concepts and new things being being sprung out. If it is not green revolution, it is this what it is blue economy, it is just just concepts upon concept and nomenclature, change and everything. So I believe that these are all targeted at the same thing. recolonization control, corporate control. So you especially like that's something I like to say. I like to say that there's an African proverb proverbs that said, he that controls the man's for the controls the person. So if you're able to control how I eat, what I eat, what I do when I plant when I harvested, you're practically controlling me. So yes, I see a parallel with that. I see I see a relationship with that. So the Green Revolution, that come and they try that and they're bringing some other concepts like the green economy, they're bringing concept like the blue economy, they're just bringing so many things. And now they are even capitalizing to use the word sustainability. So you see companies like those actually well known companies like Shell talking about sustainability, and coopting words like sustainability using colors like green and blue, which you see they're beautiful colors, they used to signify - they used to signify something good. I mean, green is life. Blue is supposed to be a clean indication of clean environment, clean atmosphere, yes. But you see that these people have coopted these words and copy stems and try to use to manipulate all targeted at the same thing. Now climate change, everyone is saying, okay, yeah, there's climate change. We need to this this this climate change, and it's affecting agriculture and everything. We need to do something about it, and we need to do it now. And the people are pushing climate smart agriculture. All systemic systemically, systematically, targeted ads, control, being able to control control what the plant control how they planted control when they haven't seen. So it's just it's just a careful attempt at corporate control.

Steve Taylor  
From your perspective, what needs to be done to address the threat of global climate change?

Dr. Antia  
Okay, so Um, I'd like to say, I like to use an analogy that I've used several times in interviews. So I often will ask if, if one comes to a place and there is water, just get to a house and then your house is filled with water, lots of water. What would be the first thing to do? Would it be? Would you quickly go and find a mop to begin to mop the water? Or would you would your first response be to find the source of the water to cut it, stop it. I'm very sure the first response from a reasonable human being would be to first find where the water source is coming from to turn it off from the source, then you can begin to think about mopping it out. But what these people, what the proponents of geoengineering and other for solutions are doing is they're trying to mop the water, they tried to use mop to mop the water while allowing the source of the water to keep you know, gushing out and pulling or pushing out water. And that's the wrong way to do very wrong approach to it. So for me, it will start, what's the meaningful response will be likely to start with everyone accepting that it is time to transit like now is the time to transit from, you know, the current source of energy that we do not need to wait for oil and gas to be exhausted from wherever it before we stop? Recognizing that exploration of oil and gas and other fossil fuels, has done more harm than good will be will set us on the right path on taking the much needed urgent climate action, which is letting go force to fuel. So it's, it's enough that we are talking about this and saying let's stop, let's stop, let's stop. If we keep selling stop, let's do something about it. And we cannot actually stop it from the source. I think it's it's these are efforts in futility and can only end up supporting or encouraging the others to continue to pollute. So, I think that the way forward the first thing is to for us to transit, transit to renewables and and better ways of managing this and then actually finally decided to let go of fossil fuels.

Steve Taylor  
Dr. Antia, is there anything regarding geoengineering or climate change that I have not asked that you would like to address?

Dr. Antia  
So, we do not want Africa to be seen as a dumping ground or a Petri dish to be testing technologies. Africa should not be seen that way. Africa should be able to make decisions for themselves decide on what they want to do for themselves and not be forced to drink things. We cannot we cannot continue to entertain the the talks that oh Africa should keep its forest to offset carbon dioxide While the Global North continue to pollute if we want to keep our forests to want to keep it because we decide to keep our forests because we have connections with our forests, because we take beyond just keeping the forest to keep our environments of the air filter and all that we have special connections. Africans have special connections with the forest some some Africans take their livelihood from the forest, some source of spirituality culture tradition, a lot of things some just take food from there. So if you say that differently than the the concept of the REDD +, one time that that there was different in in Nigeria, in the cross region grocery by standards rainforest that the UN came and said oh, this should be a no protected for carbon offsets and all that with REDD +, you know, concept. That was that it makes sense because people were forced out of the forest that they've grown for a long time, forced out of their livelihood, sources of livelihood, forced out of their connection, spiritual connections with these forests. So if we must keep our forests, it's time that Africans are allowed to decide on what to do by themselves decide on how to manage their resources by themselves decide on whether they want to keep forests or not want to keep forests by themselves. I think it's time to just totally cut loose of cut loose from this control from the Global North let Africans begin to rise and wake up and decide to make decisions for themselves in line with what's obtainable with unique landscape a unique context and people.

Steve Taylor  
Dr. Antia, thank you so much for joining us at breaking green.

Unknown Speaker  
Thank you so much. It's good to connect with you.

Steve Taylor  
You have been listening to Breaking Green, a Global Justice Ecology Project podcast. To learn more about Global Justice Ecology Project, visit Global Justice Ecology dot org. Breaking Green is made possible by tax deductible donations by people like you. Please help us lift up the voices of those working to protect forest, defend human rights and expose false solutions, simply text give g i v e to 1-716-257-4187. That's 1-716-257-4187