Opinion: No fossil fuels? With green colonialism, progressives are keeping Africa down

Opinion piece by Maarten Boudry - philosopher of science at Ghent University.

Companion piece to the latest episode of the WePlanet podcast 'Saving the World from Bad Ideas'. Views expressed in this piece may not reflect the position of WePlanet.

As long as there is still a single coal or gas power plant in Europe, we should keep quiet about fossil fuel investments in poor countries. And we certainly shouldn't stop them, because they are (still) essential for their development.

In March this year, in the basement of a posh Marriott hotel in Washington, Donald Trump's energy czar addressed African leaders and entrepreneurs at the Powering Africa Summit. Energy Minister Chris Wright did not mince his words: “This administration has no desire to tell you what to do with your energy system. That is a paternalistic, post-colonial attitude that I cannot stand”. Warm applause.

The energy secretary promised to work with African leaders as equal partners to generate more energy from all sources, including coal, oil and gas. “The world needs more energy, much more, to improve our lives”. But what about global warming? Doesn't he believe in it, like Trump himself? “Climate change is a real problem, but this government will not place it on the same level as human lives, or even above them”. At the end of his speech, he received a standing ovation.

A painful and embarrassing speech, if you ask me. Not for the person who delivered it, but for those who should have delivered it, namely the energy minister of Kamala Harris or Joe Biden, or any progressive politician. The speech was painful because it exposed an uncomfortable truth that the assembled African leaders were relieved to hear someone point out: Western countries have been practising a kind of green colonialism for years, through subtle and less subtle means, imposing their own rich people's priorities on poor countries.

Disaster for the world

For the record, Donald Trump is a disaster for the world in almost every respect, including energy policy and climate. By declaring war on universities and knowledge institutions, he is throwing a spanner in the works of the US innovation engine, which is still the most powerful in the world and on which we all (not just African countries) depend.

By axeing effective US aid development programmes such as life-saving vaccination campaigns and Barack Obama's energy programme, he is literally sending thousands of poor people to their deaths. By acting like a loose cannon, antagonising the entire world (except for the autocrats who flatter him or give him Boeings) and waging reckless trade wars, he is spectacularly damaging himself and disrupting world trade and international cooperation. And let's not even mention his frontal attack on democracy, an inspiration to aspiring dictators worldwide.

And yet: a clock that stands still is right twice a day. And Trump's hour had indeed struck in that underground Marriott, according to Trump's audience of energy ministers. But what about green colonialism? Here's how it works. Concerns about the future of the climate are a luxury that you can only afford if all your other material and social needs are met.

End of the day

The priorities of poor countries are radically different in this respect. Here, we sometimes hear the quip about the difference between the “end of the world and the end of the month”, but in African countries it is often about the end of the day. If you have to worry every day about whether your children will have enough to eat and whether they will fall ill (because you cannot afford a doctor), you cannot afford to worry about future grandchildren.

In rich countries, fossil fuels are denounced as an “addiction” from which we must “kick the habit”. But that is because we have been surrounded by the blessings of fossil fuels for so long that we hardly recognise them anymore, like the fish in David Foster Wallace's story who ask: “Water, what's that? Never heard of it.”

Fossil fuels are literally the best thing that ever happened to humanity and the ultimate reason for the staggering decline in poverty, child mortality and disease. Rich Westerners think of coal-fired power stations as dirty smoke and harmful greenhouse gases, but for poor people they symbolise prosperity and progress.

Crucial error in reasoning

Moreover, progressive climate activists repeatedly make the same crucial error in reasoning. Since poor people are hardest hit by the consequences of global warming (correct), they should also be in favour of stricter emission reductions (completely wrong). The very best protection against the forces of nature – whether man-made or natural – is economic prosperity. It allows you to build dykes, sturdy houses, air conditioning, shelters, hospitals and evacuation systems.

But all these things require abundant and reliable energy in the form of steel, cement, glass, aluminium and, of course, electricity. Much to the chagrin of those who begrudge it, that energy still comes largely from fossil fuels. No country has ever escaped poverty without the massive use of coal, gas and oil.

Only “progressive” Westerners no longer want this, because they have scared themselves silly with apocalyptic climate scenarios that are not only completely unrealistic, but also take little account of the proven power of adaptation. So they are trying (either secretly or openly) to prevent poor countries from following the same fossil fuel path that led them to the paradise of prosperity and abundance.

No tree hugger

Take American climate scientist Michael Mann, who recently said out loud what many are thinking: “We cannot allow them (the poor countries, MB) to make the same mistakes we did – our climate cannot handle it.”

Or take Al Gore, a moderate politician and not a radical tree hugger, who suggested in his book Earth in the Balance that developing countries do not actually need electricity grids like we do. A few solar panels and batteries should be enough for those people, right?

This is one of the greatest scandals of our time, as I argue in my

new book The Betrayal of the Enlightenment. Under pressure from progressive climate activists and green NGOs, rich Western countries made one promise after another to stop investing in fossil fuels elsewhere (in poor countries, where their voters do not live). In 2017, the World Bank Group, still a Western vehicle, decided to stop providing new loans for fossil fuel infrastructure. Funding for coal had already been cut off since 2010.

Who benefits most from such loans because they themselves lack sufficient capital? Poor countries, of course. In doing so, the World Bank Group is failing in its original mandate to combat global poverty and stimulate economic development. Individual Western countries are eagerly joining in this hypocrisy.

“Overseas territories”

Together with the European Investment Bank, twenty rich countries solemnly promised at the climate conference in Glasgow to stop investing in fossil fuel projects in “overseas territories” by 2025 – talk about a nice euphemism. It gets even more hypocritical. Countries such as Norway make billions in profits every year from exploiting their own gas fields, while lobbying the World Bank to stop fossil fuel exploration in poor countries.

In the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, those same Western countries snatched up all the remaining gas reserves from under the noses of poor countries, simply because they had deeper pockets. In countries such as Bangladesh, this led to major blackouts and rationing. Rich countries are feeding Africans illusions about renewable energy and handing out free solar panels, but none of them have managed to switch to solar and wind energy themselves.

Even Germany, the biggest climate champion in the Western world, still burns plenty of coal and gas.

Appropriate sarcasm

The African Development Bank (AfDB) complains that it can hardly find any financing for natural gas projects, mainly due to moral pressure from Western lenders.

Economist Vijaya Ramachandran expressed this with appropriate sarcasm in Foreign Policy. According to her, what rich countries are actually saying to African countries is: we will remain rich and keep you poor, but we will send you some charity as long as you don't emit any carbon. 'Pursuing climate ambitions at the expense of the world's poorest people is not only hypocritical, it is also immoral, unjust and green colonialism at its worst.

Or, as the president of Uganda writes about rich countries imposing unreliable solar and wind energy on poor countries: “Africa cannot sacrifice its future prosperity for Western climate goals.”

How is it possible that progressives left such an open goal for Trump? Simply by arguing wholeheartedly for energy and prosperity and condemning the “green colonialism” of the Western liberal elite, Trump's envoy received thunderous applause from African leaders. Here is a good guideline: as long as there is still a single coal or gas power plant in Europe, we should keep quiet about fossil fuel investments in poor countries. And we certainly should not stand in their way.

About the author:

Maarten Boudry is a philosopher of science at Ghent University.