G-7: Africans Deserve Real Electricity

By Brenda Shaffer

The  G-7 countries are meeting this week in Kananaskis in Alberta, Canada. This G-7 meeting will focus on geopolitical issues. While many disagreements currently prevail among the G-7 countries, all likely agree that African countries deserve a shot at pulling themselves up out of poverty. Africa is the only continent in the world where the population’s electricity access is declining,  and poverty is growing. Not only is electricity access in Africa waning, but the G-7 supported policies have led to a new phenomenon—wide-spread establishment of unreliable electricity. To avoid consumption of fossil fuels, the G-7 and its supported institutions such as the World Bank have been promoting off-grid solar, and renewable expansion in Africa without expanding baseload power sources such as fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Sporadic electricity can power a lamp or charge a phone, but not industry, water pumps and refrigeration, which are necessary for poverty reduction. It  is time for the G-7  to end its embargo on Africa’s access to reliable electricity, and remove the World Bank’s limitations on financing fossil fuels production and electricity generation. Africans deserve real electricity.

The G-7 2021 decision to stop financing fossil fuel production and electricity generation  was based on the idea that  that if there is limited access to fossil fuels, people will turn to solar, wind and hydropower. However, in reality, without access to affordable and  reliable fossil fuel power plants,  most in Africa continue to burn dung and other biomass for energy, rather than consuming more renewable energy. And this increased use of traditional biomass generates greater pollution and emissions and harms health more than fossil alternatives, such as natural gas.

Following the G-7 decision, the World Bank prioritized lowering emissions over poverty reduction in Africa, in defiance of  its defined mission. The International Energy Agency also abandoned its mission of energy security and took up climate policy in its place. The organizations  recommend more expensive and less reliable renewable energy for Africa, and don’t even suggest fossil fuel options, even though these could more readily  power African  development and help Africa rise from poverty. Moreover, restricting loans and capital to renewable energy leaves  Africans  with more expensive power. This does not seem like the right policy for the world’s poorest.

About a quarter of the new electricity access in sub-Saharan Africa  in recent years is from off-grid solar energy. Thus, many of the new electricity users do not have full  electricity access. In Africa, the  World Bank no longer promotes policies for  provision of  baseload power in electricity supply, in order to avoid admitting that Africa needs fossil fuels. There is no large-scale stable electricity without  baseload power. 

Global climate policies to restrict public funding and capital for investments in natural gas projects have disproportionately hurt Africa. High-income countries don’t need public funding for energy development, unlike most African states. Private capital markets also reduced investments in recent years in  fossil fuel production despite market demand. This drove-up energy prices, pushing energy access out of reach for many Africans and leaving many new gas discoveries in Africa, untapped. 

The U.S., Canada and other main donors should not allow the World Bank, International Energy Agency  and other entities they fund to count partial electricity access as full electricity access. If a village gets a solar energy unit that provides a few hours a day of power, this does not power machinery and stable supplies for refrigeration and water pumps. As a  result, this electricity access is highly  limited in its ability to  spur economic growth, and it is incorrect to describe these villagers as having real access to electricity. Data on electricity access in U. S. government, IEA, World Bank, and UN reports should be categorized as reliable or not. Africans receiving a few hours a day of unreliable power should not be counted as achieving full electricity access.

It is time to flip the high moral position. Those that aspire to net-zero are condemning Africa to extreme poverty. Those that promote African access to fossil fuels, want Africans to have the chance to rise up. 

Prof. Brenda Shaffer is an energy expert at the U.S. Naval Post-graduate School. @ProfBShaffer

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

5 13 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

22 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
June 19, 2025 6:16 pm

The hard corps greens want everyone
poor, except for themselves.

observa
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 19, 2025 7:33 pm

News flash greenies! Cavemen used to live in caves-
Archaeologists Unearth Evidence of Ancient Australians in Freezing Mountains

observa
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 19, 2025 7:51 pm

Until one day children Ugg and Gronk noticed that the hoppy critters seemed quite comfy out and about from the desert to the snow and hmmmmm……
Winter solstice brings widespread frost as Australia’s coldest towns revealed

cgh
June 19, 2025 6:29 pm

Sporadic electricity can power a lamp or charge a phone, but not industry, water pumps and refrigeration, which are necessary for poverty reduction. “

So true. Africa produces a significant net surplus of food. However a grossly disproportionate amount of that food is wasted by spoilage because of lack of refrigeration, transportation, proper storage and warehousing, distribution systems. All of these require electricity and energy supply on a firm, constant basis which renewables cannot supply.

By supporting only renewables, the World Bank and others such as WEF are intensifying the economic hardships and occasional famines within Africa. This is nothing less than eco-colonialism at least as ugly and unpleasant as that of the 19th century. It is long past time to call out the Greens for what they are.

Welcome to the Green New Serfdom.

June 19, 2025 7:03 pm

Fossil energy has been available for many decades and yet there is still energy poverty. Fossil energy has failed Africa

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Eric Flesch
June 19, 2025 7:32 pm

Africa’s leaders have failed Africa.

Reply to  Eric Flesch
June 19, 2025 8:52 pm

World Bank has not allowed Coal funding in Africa for many years.

The whole green anti-carbon agenda has to take considerable blame for the slowmess of energy expansion in the whole of Africa.

Reply to  Eric Flesch
June 19, 2025 9:47 pm

Fossil energy has failed Africa

Rubbish.

Eco-colonialism has failed Africa. Greens will be demanding the return of slavery next. Oh! Wait a minute ….

Reply to  Eric Flesch
June 20, 2025 7:13 am

A century ago General Smuts asked a brilliant young man, J H van der Bijl, to set up the national electricity non profit public utility in South Africa. Using the fossil fuel resources he set up an efficient utility that provided a reliable source of the cheapest electricity in the world. Had South Africa continued on the path that he laid out and not gone down the route of Communism like various African countries, the country could have become a first world country by today not a failing state. As some of your readers have noticed the problem in Africa is not climate but corrupt and incompetent leaders who have plundered and squandered the wealth of their countries and set up governments the grossly mismanage their countries.

It is well worth reading “The extraordinary South African who built Eskom and Iscor”https://dailyinvestor.com/south-africa/68726/the-extraordinary-south-african-who-built-eskom-and-iscor/

Reply to  Eric Flesch
June 20, 2025 10:37 am

Fossil energy has failed Africa because there is no such thing as “fossil” energy.

Jeff Alberts
June 19, 2025 7:31 pm

Those that aspire to net-zero”

Shouldn’t it be “those who”?

leefor
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 19, 2025 8:29 pm

Are they humanoid?

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 20, 2025 10:40 am

Shouldn’t it be “those who”?

Those whom??? (not a grammarian, just asking for a friend).

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Phil R
June 20, 2025 12:20 pm

I never get who/whom right. But my point was, we’re talking about [supposed] people, so it should be who/whom, not “that”.

John Hultquist
June 19, 2025 8:26 pm

Searchup this nonsense from 12 years ago.
July, 2013: President Obama propagandized a so-called Soccket soccer ball that creates and stores kinetic energy during play. The Tanzania demonstration underscored Obama’s disregard of real electrical power.

John Hultquist
June 19, 2025 8:26 pm

Searchup this nonsense from 12 years ago.
July, 2013: President Obama propagandized a so-called Soccket soccer ball that creates and stores kinetic energy during play. The Tanzania demonstration underscored Obama’s disregard of real electrical power.

June 19, 2025 9:36 pm

A customer of mine hired a bright young fellow (we can still say fellow, can’t we?) from Nigeria. He’s been here (Canada) for over a year and still marvels that he can walk into his home at any time of the day or night, flick the light switch, and the lights come on. Everything in the refrigerator is cold, the water in the hot water tank is hot, and water can be drunk straight out of the tap. The first time someone offered him a glass of water straight from the tap he was convinced they were trying to poison him.

I asked about generators for when there’s no electricity and he said yes, there’s lots of them. But only wealthy people have them. The average person can’t afford the fuel to run them even if you gave them one for free.

That we condemn an entire continent to permanent third world status is a crime against humanity. That there are those among us eager to impose the same conditions on the rest of us is baffling, absurd, and terrifying all at the same time.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
June 20, 2025 3:15 am

The biggest crime is we ‘all’ pay towards the many $billions, if not trillions, on saving the world from the demonized CO2 yet millions die from contaminated water in Africa.
How much would it cost to ensure every village in Africa had access to clean drinking water? One tenth of one percent of the annual funds that go to the UN IPCC to save our world?!!

observa
June 19, 2025 11:07 pm

….and thus began the search for velcro and plastic children to spare the hoppy critters-
New discovery suggests ancient humans wore modern item centuries ago
but not all evil leftists were onboard with the enlightenment and acrylic which is why you should never listen to confused leftists children-
Cat fur passed off as faux fur prompts renewed calls for statewide ban by animal welfare groups | Watch

Westfieldmike
June 19, 2025 11:53 pm

Net Zero, invented by the UN and WEF to eventually enslave us all in a digital prison. The man made global warming scam, was man made too.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Westfieldmike
June 20, 2025 4:16 am

NZ Terrorists

June 20, 2025 9:00 am

If you are interested in this subject and on X (formerly Twitter), I recommend following Jusper Machogu: @JusperMachogu

From his profile: “Agricultural Engineer, Small Scale Rural Farmer and Fossil Fuels for Africa Advocate.”

You may remember the BBC smeared him as a climate change denier.