Background to the Study
Some of the most recently held world global summits, forums, conventions and conference sessions on climate change and global energy issues (Hultman, 2018; IEA, 2019; Stevens, 2019; BBC, 2020 and World Economic Forum, 2020), revealed that there is a divide amongst most scholars and government officials who subscribe to the need for boosting global energy supply at all cost, (BBC, 2020; IEA, 2019 and Stevens; 2019) largely because it paves the way for improved economies, which in turn, translates to gainful employment and better living conditions for millions of persons in the world. On the other hand, there are a large number of scholars and government officials (The Open University [TOU], 2018; Stevens, 2019; IEA, 2019b; Clemente, 2020 and World Economic Forum, 2020b) who believe that the rising global demand for energy from various sectors of life and the economy, has triggered off an unprecedented economic and human development consequence and implications on the global environment, which presently accounts for numerous hazardous implications on the environment, the economy and on the lives and property of millions of people all over the world.
In the light of the above, scholars and scientists like (Funk and Kennedy, 2016; The Hamilton Project, 2019 and Nunn, O’Donnell, Shambaugh, Goulder, & Kolstad, 2019) argued that the rising demand for global energy by industrialized nations of the world have further increased the vulnerability of individuals in countries where these energy and mineral resources abounds in large quantity. Consequently, recent studies on climate change and global energy demand (Hultman, 2018; Kamarch, 2019 and The Hamilton Project, 2019) revealed that high-level politicking amongst government officials, multinationals, scholars and various interest groups are now at cross-roads regarding how to address the dilemmas resulting from the rising demand for global energy and its direct effect on man and the environment.
A recent study conducted by Pew Research Center (Funk and Kennedy, 2016) for instance, revealed that polarized views now abound concerning what views and opinions about climate research which scientists, politicians, and government officials are disposed to having or proclaiming in the 21st century. There is also a great controversy about what really causes climate change and what the cures are. On the other hand, there is the bipartisan and high-level politicking that tends to support the expansion and increased production of other forms and sources of energy, be it, crude oil, coal, fossil fuel, solar and wind energy, etc., irrespective of the adverse consequence it’s been feared to have on man, the climate and his environment (Funk and Kennedy, 2016 and Rachman, 2019). A case in point is seen in 2017 when Scott Morrison, while in a session in the Australian Parliament, compelled his fellow legislators to embrace fossil fuel as the next way forward for development, as he brandished a lump of coal during a parliament session. While the left-winged members of the parliament scoffed him for his proposal, Mr. Morrison and his party had the last laugh later that season in the results of the elections which was declared during the following general elections. The decision of his party to hinge their politics on climate campaign resulted in his miraculous victory in the elections that followed afterward in year 2018, which saw him emerging as Australia’s Prime Minister. This goes a long way to show how elections hinged on climate change in North America, Europe and other parts of the world, had the capacity to swing votes in the favor of those who are able to convince their electorates about the need and relevance for boosting and increasing the demand for energy.