By Brenda Shaffer
The G-7 countries meet in Kananaskis in Alberta, Canada this week. This G-7 meeting will focus on geopolitical topics. While many disagreements are currently prevailing in the G-7 countries, everyone is likely to agree that African countries deserve a shot to pull themselves out of poverty. Africa is the only continent in the world on which the power access of the population decreases and poverty grows. Strom access in Africa not only does it, but the G-7-supported guidelines have led to a new phenomenon-a wide determination of unreliable electricity. In order to avoid the consumption of fossil fuels, the G-7 and their supported institutions such as the World Bank have promoted the solar of the network and the renewable expansion in Africa without expanding Baseload power sources such as fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Sporadic electricity can supply a lamp with electricity or charge a phone, but not in industry, water pumps and cooling, which are required to reduce poverty. It is time that the G-7 ends its embargo to the access of Africa to reliable electricity and remove the boundaries of the World Bank to finance production and power generation of fossil fuels. Africans earn real electricity.
The decision of the G-7 2021 to end the production of fossil fuels and the generation of electricity was based on the idea that, if there are only limited access to fossil fuels, people turn to solar, wind and hydropower. In reality, however, most in Africa, however, continue to burn further and reliable and reliable power plants in Africa fossil fuels and other biomass for energy instead of consuming more renewable energies. And this increased use of traditional biomass creates more pollution and emissions and harms health more than fossil alternatives such as natural gas.
After the G-7 decision, the World Bank prioritized the reduction in emissions before reducing poverty in Africa in contradiction to its defined mission. The international energy agency has also given up its mission of energy security and took up climate policy in its place. The organizations recommend more expensive and less reliable renewable energies for Africa and do not even recommend fossil fuel options, although they could more easily do the development of African development and help Africa rise from poverty. In addition, the restriction of loans and capital to renewable energies leaves Africans more expensive. This does not seem to be the right policy for the poorest in the world.
About a quarter of the new power access in Subsahara Africa in recent years has come from solar energy outside the grid. Many of the new electricity users do not have complete power access. In Africa, the World Bank no longer promotes guidelines for the provision of Baseload stream in the power supply to avoid that Africa needs fossil fuels. There is no large-scale stable electricity without Baseload current.
Global climate policy to restrict public funds and capital for investments in natural gas projects has disproportionately affected Africa. In contrast to most African countries, countries with high incomes do not require any public funds for energy development. The private capital markets have also reduced investments in the production of fossil fuels in recent years despite the market demand. This led to the energy prices that did not push energy access within reach for many Africans and leave many new gas discoveries in Africa.
The United States, Canada and other main donors should not allow the World Bank, the International Energy Agency and other companies that finance it to count partial power access as a complete power access. If a village receives a solar energy unit that delivers electricity for a few hours a day, this does not do any machines and stable supply for cooling and water pumps. As a result, this power access is very limited in its ability to promote economic growth, and it is wrong to describe these villagers as real access to electricity. Data on access to electricity in the reports about the US government, IEA, World Bank and UN reports should be classified as reliable or not as reliable. Africans, who receive unreliable performance for a few hours a day, should not be considered to be reached by full power access.
It is time to turn the high moral position. Those who strive for net zero condemn Africa to extreme poverty. Those who promote African access to fossil fuels want the Africans the chance to raise themselves.
Prof. Brenda Shaffer is an energy expert at the US Naval Post Graduate School. @Profbhaffer
This article was originally published by Realclearergy and provided via Realclearwire.
Like this:
Load…
Related
Do you discover more from watts?
Subscribe to the latest posts to your e -mail.
