₦airaland Forum

naptu2:
Part 1: Blue Badge

1) The Battle of Seattle: There was a World Trade Organisation summit in Seattle in 1999, but the summit was overshadowed by massive riots.

You see, the West had spent a lot of time trying to convince developing countries to open up their markets/economies. They thought that this would enable them to dump their goods in those countries (that is, they would have an easy market and make huge profit). This idea led to things like NAFTA and the European Union. It was called globalisation.

However, globalisation led to cheap goods and most importantly, cheap labour flooding the West. This led to Westerners losing their jobs. There was therefore a backlash against globalisation. There were major riots at summits like the G8, WTO and World Economic Forum in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

2) 9/11/2001: I don’t need to write much about this. You already know that terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre on September 11th,2001 and you know that terrorist attacks have been on the increase since then.

3) Hamas vs Israel: Furthermore, you know that there is a war between Israel and Hamas and that COP28 is being held in the Middle East.

What this means

1, 2 and 3 above have meant that summit organisers have had to take special measures. They either:

a) Hold the summit in a secluded place, usually a small village (like Davos or Cornwall, or in an already secluded place like Camp David) or,

b) They clear out entire neighbourhoods of a major city and restrict access to it. That’s what led to the Chasers prank that I told you about.

Australia hosted the 2007 APEC summit and the government said that they were going to have the biggest security operation ever. They were going to spend $160 million on security and they were going to block off an entire district of Sydney. Nobody would be able to get into that district without authorisation.

Well, a comedy group rented a limousine, dressed people up as bodyguards, put a Canadian flag on the limo and they were able to get into the secure zone. They got in front of George Bush’s hotel and a person dressed as Osama Bin Ladin came out of the limo. That’s when they were arrested.

The point is that there is a (I hate to use the word similar) major security operation in place for COP28.

The event is being held at Expo City and access has been restricted. The area has been divided into a Green Zone and a Blue Zone.

Anybody with a ticket can enter the Green Zone (this is the public area).

You need to have a blue badge to enter the Blue Zone. That blue badge is like gold right now.

The Blue Zone is where the main negotiations and discussions are taking place. It hosts the World Climate Action Summit, the country pavilions, presidency events, and hundreds of side events including panel discussions, round tables, and cultural events. I want you to note the term country pavilions. We’ll come back to it in part 2.

naptu2:
The Blue Zone is organised by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Only UNFCCC-accredited participants such as Parties, world leaders, media, and observers will have access to the Blue Zone.

As you will see in part 2, the nature of the summit has changed since 1992. The summit now attracts businessmen, NGOs (both international and local), federal and local politicians, heads of parastatals and other civil servants, journalists and other media personalities, scientists, etc (instead of just the federal politicians and scientists of 1992). All of these people need the blue badge in order to access the Blue Zone, where the main events are taking place.

I will show you tweets from activists from Nigeria and Pakistan who tried to get the blue badge from the UN. They were told that they had to approach their home governments for the badge (the UN had run out of blue badges). These activists were complaining that politicians, businessmen and civil servants were able to get blue badges from the Nigerian and Pakistani governments, yet they were not able to get blue badges.

naptu2:
There was a ridiculous report that the Nigerian Government had sent (and therefore was funding) 1,411 people to COP28. Of course that’s a lie. The person that wrote that report simply got a list of people that got blue badges from the Nigerian Government. This includes people like Abdulsamad Rabiu, Tony Elumelu, Aliko Dangote and Gilbert Chagoury, who would have paid their own way and even flew there on their own private jets.

(By the way, I previously wrote that certain stories seem to recur whenever a Nigerian president travels. President Goodluck Jonathan travelled to Kenya in 2014. There was going to be a business summit on the sidelines of his visit. Sahara Reporters and other similar media began writing sensational stories that Goodluck Jonathan travelled with 7 private jets and an enormous delegation. Ma d people believed these stories. The fact of the matter was that the President only travelled with 1 jet, the presidential jet, while the other jets were used by businessmen like Aliko Dangote, who attended the business event. I remember that the then Kenyan foreign minister made a comment about the number of jets Nigerians took to Kenya).

The fact is that many people that were registered/accredited by the Federal Government (that is, they got their blue badges from the Federal Government) paid for the trip themselves or were funded by their organisation or participated virtually. The Federal Government only sent 422 people to COP28, not 1,411.

In fact, as you’ll see in the next part, there are many people and organisations, including businessmen, activists, government agencies, journalists, etc. who wanted blue badges, but couldn’t get any. Some of them were invited to events in the Blue Zone, but they are not able to attend because they do not have blue badges.

Nwaikpe:
Nigerian government replied Peter Obi that they (the delegates) are not sponsored by the government.

That is true because they are actually sponsored by the mentvergo.


Disgrraced delegates of a country of particular concern.

naptu2:
Part 2: The Huge Market

The change in the climate change messaging is similar to that of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

Dear diary, I told you that, once upon a time, the messaging around the HIV/AIDS pandemic was simply about scaremongering. The logo for the campaign was a skull and two cross bones, pictures of emaciated people were used in the advert and it was basically a terrible thing. The adverts made you feel like you already had HIV/AIDS, even though you hadn’t done anything to get it, and that you were going to die next minute. They spread fear and panic.

However, in the 1990s, it was realised that this kind of message was counterproductive. It led to stigmatisation of people living with HIV (people felt that they could catch the disease by just being near someone that had it). It made people afraid to get tested. It basically made the fight against the disease more difficult.

Therefore, the message changed. The skull and crossbones logo was replaced with a ribbon, people were encouraged to get tested, practice safe sex and not to stigmatise people living with HIV.

Similarly, the message around the climate change issue has changed over the years.

Beginning

The idea of a global environmental catastrophe did not really gain traction until the mid-1980s. There had domestic calls that something had to be done about issues like the smog in Los Angeles in the 1970s, but there was no global action about a potential climate catastrophe.

The whole world was mobilised to tackle the problem of the hole in the ozone layer in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The ozone layer protected the earth from the harmful rays of the sun, but there was a hole in it in the early 1990s. Scientists warned that this could lead to an increase in skin cancer, sunburn, cataracts and other health issues.

The depletion in the Ozone layer was caused by harmful chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which were contained in propellants in aerosol cans and refrigerants in air conditioners and fridges. These ozone depleting substances were banned and the ozone layer recovered by the mid-1990s.

Negative message & scare mongering
The issue of climate change/global warming also took centre stage around this time. The messaging was about catastrophes. There were stories in the media about this or that place being submerged in water. I remember a prediction that Victoria Island would be swallowed by the ocean by the year 2000. It was said that carbon emissions caused global warming and the chief culprits were emissions from factories, internal combustion engines (cars, planes, trains and ships) and agriculture (belching and farting cows). The message was about drastic measures. We’ve got to stop burning fossil fuels, we’ve got to stop using cars, planes, trains and ships, we’ve got to stop eating meat, we’ve got to stop large scale agriculture.

Backlash

As you can imagine, this led to a backlash. If you close down factories because of emissions, how will people get jobs and earn a living? If you ban cars, trains, planes and ships, how will people move around? If you stop burning fossil fuels (gas, petrol, coal, etc) how will people get electricity? If you stop large scale agriculture, how will farmers earn a living and how will people get food to eat?

So some people in the West believed that global warming and climate change was a plot by eastern countries and developing countries to destroy the economy of the West. Many conspiracy theories about global warming sprang up because of this backlash.

Therefore, politicians, governments and activists realised that they had to change their message if they wanted support in the fight against global warming.

Positive message and opportunities

So instead of messages that made people think that they would lose their livelihood, governments and international organisations now emphasise the fact that there are job opportunities in combating climate change (the green economy). There are jobs in things like recycling, electric vehicles, exploring renewable sources of energy, conservation of water, sustainable agriculture, etc. Then, of course there is the big one – carbon credits.

You see, there was a huge debate about who was responsible for global warming. Developed countries complained that they were having to make huge economic sacrifices to reduce global warming and they wanted developing countries to do more. However, developing countries complained that it was the industrial activities of developed countries over the past 300 years that led to global warming, yet it is the developing countries that would bear the brunt of the problem. A means of satisfying both sides was needed.

In very simple English, carbon offsets and credits are a system in which a government, company or individual whose activities lead to the emission of greenhouse gasses, can pay someone whose activities lead to a reduction in the emission of those gasses.

For example, if Mercedes Benz’s activities lead to the production of a certain amount of carbon dioxide, they can fund the activities of someone in the Democratic Republic of Congo that plants enough trees to absorb the same amount of carbon dioxide that Mercedes Benz produces. Therefore, Mercedes Benz AG can claim to be carbon neutral.

Business, Markets & Opportunities

In order words, there is like a market for trading greenhouse gas emissions.

Areas in which big companies and developed countries can fund projects (to get carbon credits) include forestry, renewable energy (windfarms, solar projects, biogas digesters, cookstoves, destruction of landfill methane, etc.


These ideas, the idea that there is money to be made in fighting global warming, the idea that there are job opportunities in fighting global warming, have changed the nature of the fight and have changed climate conferences like COP28.

The Rio Earth Summit of 1992 mainly featured national politicians, scientists and activists. It was mainly about the science of climate change and the ozone layer. COP28 features national politicians, state and local politicians, all kinds of businessmen, journalists, NGOs, scientists, activists and many more people.

DrMB:
Is This a Commitment or a Crowd? Nigeria's Massive COP30 Delegation 🇳🇬
Nigeria has one of the highest number of foreign registered delegates for #COP30 (2025) in Brazil! With 749 registered delegates.
👇 Join the Conversation!
Look through the list of registered delegates below and tell us your thoughts.

JAWBONE:
Just like in 2023 when Tinubu carried Toke Makinwa, IBD Dende to COP in Dubai, they have started this year again

Fred2020:
Only second to China! Brazil is the host, so should not be counted.

The government know how to spend on frivolities...no more to spend on security, lecturers, doctors but enough money to send almost 1,000 delegates for a conference in an area in which Nigeria's involvement is almost zero?

It is well with Naija

Tareq1105:
You guys are stupid in your thinking and very sick upstairs.

You just write whatever you like mischievously without finding out how many delegates were actually sponsored by the govt.

There were more private partners than govt officials at that conference but hatred would never allow them to see the truth.

maberry:
God is not aware of this country!