Connect with us

Column

Trust Deficit And Governance

Published

5 years ago

on

Trust deficit has come to be a common refrain in the polity used to explain lack of trust in government pronouncements and programmes. Its foundation is rooted in political party soap box promises and manifestoes that are never kept. Sir Walter Scott (1808) wrote “Oh, what a tangled web we leave, when first we practice to deceive”.
Reflecting on this truism, it is clear that those who prevaricate in their speech or actions cannot be trusted. Their social capital budget will be fraught with deficit.
They are persons or institutions whose words or actions are of double standards.
They who betray the common trust, thrust upon them by Nigerians are many and varied.
If trust in Nigeria were a national budget, it’s deficit profile would be more than 90 per cent.
We often hear social commentators in Nigeria say, “you can’t trust anybody in power”. This may be in the context of Frayed political relationships among and between those in power and the people they govern. It is about mutual distrust.
It is important to state that trust is a two way traffic; those who govern must be trusted and the governed must trust the system for it to work and generate positive impact.
Stephen Covey placed trust as an important ingredient in any relationship, be it political, social or economic, when he said “Trust is the glue of life. It’s the most essential ingredient in effective communication. It is the fundamental principle that holds all relationships.
Sadly, the political ecosystem in Nigeria has eroded these values. Can Nigerians as a people continue to dwell on the pessimism expressed by William Shakespear when he said “Don’t trust the person who has broken faith once”?
Will this perception not create a web of complex social relations and a complexity of failures and retrogression in the polity, if strictly adhered to? What can a people do without trust?
Frank Grane a social Psychologist gave an ambivalent view when he said “you may be deceived if you trust too much, but you will live in torment unless you trust enough”. Trust deficit simply refers to a degree of lack of trust.
The term deficit in this context implies that there is trust but not enough trust because of broken promises in the system. People now choose who and what to trust.
In political relations which talks about social contract, huge promises are made to the people. The people on their part often bask in the euphoria of expectations, which are broken. So they make choices or effect a change of leadership based on those expectations.
Lady Gaga on trust, said “Trust is a mirror, you can fix it, if its broken, but you can still see the crack in that …reflection”. This explicates the danger in trust deficit in a polity where a people are afraid to trust in their government and functionaries.When trust deficit becomes systemic, it becomes a dangerous phenomenon in governance.
How can a people trust the harvest unless they see it sown.
There is trust deficit in police relations with the people of Nigeria.
Bail is free means bail is not free. Police is your friend means police is your enemy. Election will be free and fair means it will be rigged.
Boko Haram has become inevitable and the military cannot contend with it. When the spokesman of the Federal Government of Nigeria says “I do not lie”, many evidence will point to the contrary; he lies most of the time. The promise of Federal Government to mend the East West road has beccome an unending wait and only when MEND strikes that a portion will be white washed with alsphat. The Military Prevarication on the Lekki Toll Gate debacle is a source of distrust. How can a civilized group claim that no one died in that protest?
Poor ethnic relations in Nigeria is another source of distrust. An Ijaw man does not believe that an Hausa Fulani man at the helm of affairs can protect his interest.
In a similar view an Igbo man can hardly accept that a Yoruba politician is out to protect his political interest.
Among the minorities the story is the same, mutual distrust prevails. Political distrust among the ethnic groups in Nigeria is rooted in the nature of the colonial administration where the country stood on a tripod of centrifugal polity.
There were three regions in Nigeria. The East was dominated by the Igbo, West Yoruba and North Hausa Fulani. Unfortunately every region/ethnic group was inclined to fight for their interest rather than national interest. The interest of the minorities are also not taken into consideration.
Bad governance and military coups have further created distrust in the system where the struggle to govern by different geographical regions took over the merits of democratic values.
Class distrust has heightened as a result of growing poverty in Nigeria.
This has even take a demographic dimension. The youths do not believe that the class of persons they refer to as ancestors because of their age can governor this country well any longer.
This mutual distrust can also be seen in the stereotyping of youths as a bunch of irresponsibles. The fallacies above are unfortunate, because age has nothing to do with leadership. This type of distrust is retrogressive.
The growing spate of infrastructural deficit is a function of distrust and a result of rivalry among groups and the political class. A leader emerges and concentrates in the development of his clime rather than spreading the joy. He does so with the conviction that if he does not do it the next leader will abandon his people.
When trust and sincerity of purpose exist, true spirit of governance will unfold to allow development take a foothold in Nigeria. Many believe that restructuring will mitigate mutual distrust in Nigeria.

 

By: Bon Woke

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Column

Renewable Energy Faces Looming Workforce Crisis

Published

3 weeks ago

on

August 18, 2025

By

Despite a discouraging political climate and unprecedented uncertainty in the United States clean energy sector, low costs of wind and solar energy continue to drive growth of the domestic clean energy sector.
However, while market forces continue to support the expansion of renewable energy capacity, the sector faces critical challenges extending beyond the antagonism of the Trump administration.
The continued growth of solar and wind power risks being hampered by several mitigating factors, including (but not limited to) intensifying competition over increasingly scarce suitable land plots, stressed and volatile global supply chains, lengthy and unpredictable development processes, Complex and overlapping permitting processes, and a critical talent gap.
The renewable energy labor shortage has been years in the making, but is no less closer to resolution. The issue spans both white collar and blue collar positions, and threatens to kneecap progress in the booming sector.
Between the years of 2011 and 2030, it is expected that global levels of installed wind and solar capacity will quadruple. Analysis from McKinsey & Company concludes that “this huge surge in new wind and solar installations will be almost impossible to staff with qualified development and construction employees as well as operations and maintenance workers.
“It’s unclear where these employees will come from in the future,” the McKinsey report goes on to say.
He continued that “There are too few people with specialized and relevant expertise and experience, and too many of them are departing for other companies or other industries.”
The solar and wind industries are suffering from a lack of awareness of career paths and opportunities, despite their well-established presence in domestic markets.
Emergent clean energies face an even steeper uphill battle. Geothermal energy, for example, is poised for explosive growth as one of vanishingly few carbon-free energy solutions with broad bipartisan support, but faces a severe talent gap and punishingly low levels of awareness in potential talent pools.
But while the outlook is discouraging, industry insiders argue that it’s too soon to sound the alarms. In fact, a recent report from Utility Drive contends that “solutions to the energy talent gap are hiding in plain sight.”
The article breaks down those solutions into four concrete approaches: building partnerships with educators, formulating Registered Apprenticeship pathways, updating credential requirements to reflect real-world needs, and rethinking stale recruitment strategies.
Targeting strategic alliances with educational institutions is a crucial strategy for creating a skilled workforce, particularly in emerging sectors like geothermal energy.
Businesses can, for example, partner with and sponsor programs at community colleges, creating a pipeline for the next generation of skilled workers. Apprenticeships serve a similar purpose, encouraging hands-on learning outside of the classroom. Such apprenticeships can apply to white collar positions as well as blue collar roles.
“If we can figure out a way to educate the younger generation that you can actually have a career that you can be proud of and help solve a problem the world is facing, but also work in the extractive industry, I think that could go a long way,” said Jeanine Vany, executive vice president of corporate affairs for Canadian geothermal firm Eavor, speaking about the geothermal energy talent gap.
These approaches won’t solve the talent gap overnight – especially as political developments may discourage would-be jobseekers from placing their bets on a career in the renewables sector. But they will go a long way toward mitigating the issue.
“The clean energy transition depends on a workforce that can sustain it,” reports Utility Drive. “To meet the hiring challenges, employers will benefit from looking beyond the next position to fill and working toward a strategic, industry-wide vision for attracting talent.”
By: Haley Zaremba
Continue Reading

Column

Is It End For Lithium’s Reign As Battery King?

Published

1 month ago

on

August 1, 2025

By

Lithium-ion batteries power the world around us. Their prevalence in our daily life is growing steadily, to the extent that lithium-ion batteries now power a whopping 70 percent of all rechargeable devices.
From electric vehicles to smartphones to utility-scale energy storage, lithium-ion batteries are increasingly forming the building blocks of innumerable sectors.
But despite its dominance in battery technologies, there are some serious issues with lithium supply chains that make it a less-than-ideal model upon which to base our world.
Not only is extracting lithium often extremely environmentally damaging, it’s deeply intertwined with geopolitical pressure points. China controls a huge portion of global lithium supply chains, rendering markets highly vulnerable to shocks and the political will of Beijing.
China’s control is particularly strong in the case of electric vehicle batteries, thanks to a decade-long strategy to outcompete the globe.
“For over a decade, China has meticulously orchestrated a strategic ascent in the global electric vehicle (EV) batteries market, culminating in a dominance that now presents a formidable challenge to Western manufacturers,” reports EE Times.
The effect functions as “almost a moat” around Chinese battery production, buffering the sector against international competition.
The multiple downsides and risks associated with lithium and lithium-ion battery sourcing is pushing EV companies to research alternative battery models to power the electric cars of the future.
There are a litany of lithium alternatives in research and development phases, including – but not limited to – lead, nickel-cadmium, nickel-metal hydride, sodium nickel chloride, lithium metal polymer, sodium-ion, lithium-sulfur, and solid state batteries.
Solid state batteries seem to be the biggest industry darling. Solid-state batteries use a solid electrolyte as a barrier and conductor between the cathode and anode.
These batteries don’t necessarily do away with lithium, but they can eliminate the need for graphite – another critical mineral under heavy Chinese control. Plus, solid state batteries are purported to be safer, have higher energy density, and recharge faster than lithium-ion batteries.
While solid-state batteries are still in development, they’re already being tested in some applications by car companies. Mercedes and BMW claim that they are already road-testing vehicles powered by solid-state batteries, but it will likely be years before we see them in any commercial context.
Subaru is on the verge of testing solid-state batteries within its vehicles, but is already employing a smaller form of the technology to power robots within its facilities.
However, while solid-state batteries are being hailed as a sort of holy grail for battery tech, some think that the promise – and progress – of solid-state batteries is overblown.
“I think there’s a lot of noise in solid state around commercial readiness that’s maybe an exaggeration of reality”, Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe said during an interview on this week’s Plugged-In Podcast.
Sodium ion batteries are also a promising contender to overtake lithium-ion batteries in the EV sector. Sodium is 1,000 times more abundant than lithium.
“It’s widely available around the world, meaning it’s cheaper to source, and less water-intensive to extract”, stated James Quinn, the CEO of U.K.-based Faradion. “It takes 682 times more water to extract one tonne of lithium versus one tonne of sodium.That is a significant amount.”
Bloomberg projections indicate that sodium-ion could displace 272,000 tons of lithium demand as soon as 2035.
But even this does not signal the death of lithium. Lithium is simply too useful in battery-making. It’s energy-dense and performs well in cold weather, making it “indispensable for high-performance applications” according to EV World.
“The future isn’t lithium or sodium—it’s both, deployed strategically across sectors…the result is a diversified, resilient battery economy.”
By: Haley Zaremba
Continue Reading

Column

Why Oil Prices Could See Significant Upside Shift

Published

1 month ago

on

July 28, 2025

By

The 9th OPEC International Seminar was held in Vienna recently, wherein participants discussed energy security, investment, climate change, and energy poverty, with a particular emphasis on balancing these competing priorities.
According to commodity analysts at Standard Chartered, the summit, titled “Charting Pathways Together: The Future of Global Energy”, featured significantly greater engagement from international oil companies and consuming country governments, with discussions converging on a more inclusive shared agenda rather than non-intersecting approaches seen in previous years.
However, StanChart reported there was a clear mismatch between what energy producers vs. market analysts think about spare production capacity.
Unlike Wall Street analysts, who frequently talk about spare capacity of 5-6 million barrels per day (mb/d), speakers from several sectors of the industry noted that spare capacity is both limited and very geographically concentrated.
StanChart believes this erroneous assumption about spare capacity has been a big drag on oil prices, and the implications for the whole forward curve of oil prices could be potentially profound once traders realize that roughly two-thirds of the capacity they thought was available on demand does not actually exist.
This makes the analysts bullish about the general shape of their forecast 2026 price trajectory (Figure 32), i.e., a set of significant upward shifts as opposed to the flat trajectory seen in the market curve and in analyst consensus.
In other words, oil prices could have as much as $15/barrel upside from current levels.
StanChart is not the only oil bull here. Goldman Sachs recently hiked its oil price forecast for H2 2025, saying the market is increasingly shifting its focus from recession fears to potential supply disruptions, low spare capacity, lower oil inventories, especially among OECD countries and production constraints by Russia.
GS has increased its Brent forecast by $5/bbl to $66/bbl, and by $6 for WTI crude to $63/bbl, slightly lower than current levels of $68.34/bbl and 66.24/bbl for Brent and WTI crude, respectively.
However, the Wall Street bank has maintained its 2026 price forecast at $56/bbl for Brent and $52 for WTI, due to “an offset between a boost from higher long-dated prices and a hit from a wider 1.7M bbl/day surplus.’’ Previously, GS had forecast a 1.5M bbl/day surplus for the coming year.
Further, Goldman sees a stronger oil price rebound beyond 2026 due to reduced spare capacity.
EU natural gas inventories have climbed at faster-than-average clip in recent times. According to Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE) data, Europe’s gas inventories stood at 73.10 billion cubic metres (bcm) on 13 July, good for a 2.31 bcm w/w increase.
Still, the injection rate is not enough to completely fill the continent’s gas stores, with the current clip on track to take inventories to about 97.9 bcm, or 84.3% of storage capacity, at the end of the injection season.
Europe’s gas demand remains fairly lacklustre despite extremely high temperatures across much of the continent in recent weeks.
According to estimates by StanChart, EU gas demand for the first 14 days of July averaged 583 million cubic meters/day, nearly 3% lower from a year ago but a 10% improvement from the June lows.
However, StanChart is bullish on natural gas prices, saying the market is likely underestimating the likelihood of more Russian gas being taken off the markets.
Back in April, U.S. senators Lindsey Graham (Republican) and Richard Blumenthal (Democrat), introduced “Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025”, with the legislation enjoying broad bipartisan support (85 co-sponsors in the Senate out of 100 senators).
In a joint statement on 14 July, the two senators noted that President Trump’s decision to implement 100% secondary tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas if a peace agreement is not reached within 50 days but pledged that they will continue to work on “bipartisan Russia sanctions legislation that would implement up to 500 percent tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil and gas”.
StanChart has predicted that the Trump administration is unlikely to take actions that risk driving oil prices higher. However, Russian gas remains in the crosshairs, with U.S. LNG likely to see a surge in demand if Russian gas exports are curtailed.
StanChart estimates that the EU’s net imports of Russian pipeline gas averaged 79.8 million cubic metres per day (mcm/d) in the first 14 days of July, with all non-transit flows into the EU coming into Bulgaria through the Turkstream pipeline, with Hungary and Slovakia also receiving Turkstream gas.
There was also a flow of about 65 mcm/d of Russian LNG in the first half of July, with Russia providing 18.6% of the EU’s net imports. StanChart has predicted that we could see a strong rally in natural gas prices if Washington slaps Moscow with fresh gas sanctions.
By: Alex Kimani
Continue Reading

Trending