One of the most important developments this century has been a major increase in energy access across the globe: Billions of people have gained access to modern energy, a precondition for rising from poverty.
Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region of the world not benefitting from this transformation. In Africa, energy poverty is growing. For the first time since World War II, access to electricity is also backsliding in Africa.
Over the last year, the International Energy Agency has sought to address Africa’s rising energy poverty, through organizing conferences and publishing reports. The IEA and global leaders gathered in conferences in Africa. The Norwegian Development Agency (NORAD) was a major funder of the endeavor. Yet, the IEA did not offer any practical solution to address the rising energy poverty in Africa because it is unable to utter the essential words: fossil fuels.
In fact, through its promotion of cutting loans and investments in fossil fuels in Africa, the IEA itself contributed to the decline in energy access in Africa. The IEA’s promotion of “Net-Zero” served as the basis of decisions in recent years by the G-7, World Bank, and United Nations to cut funding and investments in fossil fuels and production of electricity from fossil fuels in Africa.
The idea behind denying investments and funding for fossil fuels was that it would force Africans to adopt renewable energy. However, reducing access to fossil fuels did not lower pollution and emissions. In fact, the lack of access to stable and affordable electricity produced from fossil fuels, has led to increased pollution, emissions and premature deaths in Africa, as Africans turn to burning dung, wood, lump coal and other biomass for cooking and other basic energy functions.
The IEA acknowledges in a recently published report, “Universal Access to Clean Cooking in Africa” that burning traditional biomass releases more carbon emissions than use of fossil fuels. Despite this acknowledgment that the path to lower emissions and pollution and improved public health is through fossil fuels, the IEA isn’t willing to say the plain truth: Africa needs fossil fuels. For the IEA, like so many multi-lateral institutions, energy policy has become a cult, where fossil fuels are sacrilegious.
The new IEA report on Africa numbers 151 pages, probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to compile, yet doesn’t give any reasonable path for Africa to increase energy access. The report points to the transformation of China, Indonesia and India in energy access over recent decades as models for Africa. However, the IEA neglects to point out that those three countries benefitted from access to coal and government and multi-lateral funding to develop electricity produced from fossil fuels. Yet, Africa is denied funding and investments to develop its fossil fuel resources.
In the report, the IEA sets South Africa apart as an example of where modern energy access is growing and the number of homes reliant on burning biomass are declining, in contrast to countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The IEA however neglects to point out that South Africa has succeeded in expanding modern energy access by developing and burning its domestic coal reserves. Coal provides 69% of South Africa’s energy consumption and is the source of 82% of its electricity production.
In the report, the IEA acknowledges that liquified petroleum gas (LPG) and electricity are necessary to replace the use of traditional biomass. Yet, it still advocates blocking Africa from developing its own fossil fuel resources. According to the IEA report, imported LPG and natural gas can replace traditional biomass, but not local energy resources.
What is the IEA’s answer on how Africa will pay for that imported fuel and to finance new cooking stoves? The IEA suggests that Africa sell carbon credits to fund the transition from burning wood and dung to LPG and electricity. However, it is highly unlikely that enough revenue from carbon credits could be generated to finance moving from dung and wood, which is collected for free, to payment for stoves, LPG and electricity. Moreover, this would increase Africa’s dependence on handouts from abroad, instead of strengthening local economies.
The answer to Africa’s energy poverty is development of the continent’s oil, gas and coal resources. Profits and taxes from the development could be used to expand LPG and electricity access in Africa. Paradoxically, as the IEA acknowledges, developing fossil fuels and producing electricity from them would lower emissions, pollutions and pre-mature deaths in Africa.
U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright recently stated that the Trump administration is evaluating whether the U.S. should withdraw its membership from the IEA or attempt to reform the organization. The administration claims that the IEA has strayed from its mission of promoting energy security. Instead, the IEA has become another one of the dozens of major climate policy advocacy organizations. In his evaluation of the IEA, Secretary Wright should add the IEA’s role in increasing energy poverty in Africa and its use of public funding on projects that do not benefit Africans.
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.
The greenies are misanthropic at best, and regret anyone leaving living in thatched huts, as that is their goal for most people who survive their policies.
apart from themselves of course
The level of cognitive dissonance which the IEA exhibits is truly astounding. The only practical solution for Africa is coal fired power stations and the IEA knows this, along with everybody else in the entire world. Yet the IEA finds it too painful to say this. This would be quite amusing except for the fact that the IEA is harming Africans by not admitting the truth.
I vote for trying to reform the IEA. We probably won’t succeed, but at least we can say we tried.
You cannot reform the IEA. This institution no longer has any worthwhile mandate from its member nations. It plays zero role in its original mandate to ensure reliable petroleum supplies.It has become a meaningless swamp of alternative energy advocacy while doing zero useful research or data collection of its own. And from personal experience, its head Dr. Fatih Birol is a hypocritical fraud.
So, all of this means that you fire everyone in the building and burn it to the ground.Cato the Elder was right when he said, “Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.” (For Carthaginem, substitute IEA.) Until it is demolished, IEA will continue its current course of advocating for the impoverishment of millions of Africans.
My pet theory is that Fatih Birol wants to become the first Turkish Secretary General of the UN and that is foremost in his mind always.
It’s an interesting speculation. The last European Sec-Gen was the appalling Kurt Waldhem in the 1970s.Surely Birol can do better than a former Wehrmacht officer (sarc/off).
Good points in this article.
However,
“Despite this acknowledgment that the path to lower emissions and pollution and improved public health is through fossil fuels, the IEA isn’t willing to say the plain truth: Africa needs fossil fuels.”
There is NO NEED to choose a path to lower emissions, presumably referring to the “carbon” [sic] emissions mentioned in the preceding sentence. If you think your new and improved path must support a goal to reduce CO2 emissions, you are lacking a sound sense of direction, in my view. There is no good scientific reason to suppose those emissions are capable of causing harm.
They are indistinguishable from a Death Cult, in terms of all practical effects.
No reform or compromise is on the horizon.
[Our] Battle Cry should therefore be, IMHO:
Carthago est delendum* or some equivalent call to Total War.
For the very same reasons.
Reading this post brings this to mind.
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
Richard P. Feynman
The IEA’s ideas clearly don’t match what we can clearly all see, the IEA is wrong.
International elites have been trying hard to NOT solve the problem. Solar box ovens gained attention about 25 years ago as a solution for cooking in developing countries facing fuel shortages. Then there was B. Obama promoting a soccer ball that produced electricity for a small light. In the USA, since the 1950s most homes have had electricity. Refrigerators, stoves, and hot water (gas or electric) were common.
Why were African countries not able to do likewise?
Eco-colonialism
“Eco-colonialism”
Yep. For decades western environmental and other NGOs, often tacitly supported by governments and international development agencies, broadly opposed large scale energy and resource development in Africa and the developing world.
They also prioritised factors such as transparency, market liberalisation and climate change rather than practical measures to improve the lives of the people.
The IEA was created for and successfully completed its mission of coordination during the oil embargo. Like any bureaucracy, once the mission is completed a new mission must be adapted or the bureaucracy ceases to exist.