International Energy Agency Policies Hurt Africans

Authored by Brenda Shaffer via RealClearWire,

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 benefiting 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 past year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) 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 Agency for Development Cooperation 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 G7, 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 acknowledged in its recently published report “Universal Access to Clean Cooking in Africa” that burning traditional biomass releases more carbon emissions than using fossil fuels.

Despite this acknowledgment that the path to lower emissions and pollution—improving 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 multilateral institutions, energy policy has become a cult in which fossil fuels are sacrilegious.

The new IEA report on Africa numbers 151 pages and probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to compile, yet it 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 to government and multilateral 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 a place where modern energy access is growing and the number of homes reliant on burning biomass is decreasing, 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 percent of South Africa’s energy consumption and is the source of 82 percent 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 as to how Africa will pay for that imported fuel and finance new cooking stoves? The IEA suggests that Africa sell carbon credits to fund the transition from burning wood and dung to using LPG and electricity. However, it is highly unlikely that enough revenue from carbon credits could be generated to finance a move from dung and wood—which is collected for free—to pay 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, pollution, and premature deaths in Africa.

U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright recently stated that the Trump administration is evaluating whether the United States 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, 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.