‘Economic Growth in Africa Will Not Be Achieved by a Blanket Ban on Fossil Fuels’
March 15 , 2021 (EIRNS)—An op-ed under the above title ran in The Hill March 4, which took direct aim at the heart of the Great Reset and the Mission Possible programs of the Malthusian elites. Written by former Liberian Public Works Minister Gyude Moore, now a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development, and Vijaya Ramachandran, a senior fellow and the director for energy and development at the (pro-nuclear) Breakthrough Institute, its pro-development view is refreshing and is here quoted at length:
“Special Envoy John Kerry said the administration wants ‘to develop a U.S. climate finance plan, as well as a plan for ending international financing of fossil fuel projects with public money.’ This could be done thoughtfully to support a transition to a clean and energy abundant future for everyone—or it could result in a ban on all oil and gas projects which will stifle economic growth and make poor populations in Africa even more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change....
“Africa’s first priority is to grow more food. Composting and recycling can only go so far—farmers need synthetic fertilizer to raise yields, and natural gas is the most efficient energy source for fertilizer production. Poor farmers in Africa need much better access to irrigation. Efforts to use small-scale solar-powered irrigation systems at the farm level ... are nowhere near sufficient to meet the needs of the entire continent. Large-scale, energy-intensive water control projects that rely on fossil fuels must be in the mix—just as they are in wealthy countries.
“Domestic food supply chains provide the vast majority of food across Sub-Saharan Africa, but they’re hampered by poor roads and the unreliable fuel supplies. Construction of much-needed roads requires energy and the transportation sector as a whole remains almost entirely dependent on oil and gas....
“The continent’s needs are too great to be met solely with current green energy technologies, and its finances too stretched to be able to afford the cost of carbon-neutral energy—costs that can be borne in wealthier countries, who are responsible for most of the world’s carbon, today and in the past. Furthermore, fully zero-carbon grids exist almost nowhere in the world (Iceland is the main exception) and non-intermittent forms of electricity generation are still needed to balance out wind and solar. And low-carbon alternatives to the production of fertilizer, cement and steel largely do not exist.”
The authors conclude:
“Shifting U.S. development aid to low- and zero-carbon energy infrastructure projects over time is a worthy goal. But a blanket ban today on the financing of fossil fuels in the poorest countries will not only obstruct economic growth; it will also do little to fight climate change and makes those countries less resilient to climate change.”