By Brenda Shaffer

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.

Essay by Eric Worrall

Are greens market testing a pivot from climate activism to anti-AI activism?

Climate advocates outraged at Trump administration plans to fast-track AI sector

Scheme rolled out Wednesday reveals intent to dismantle some environmental and land-use regulations

Dharna Noor Thu 24 Jul 2025 06.27 AEST

…

“We need to build and maintain vast AI infrastructure and the energy to power it. To do that, we will continue to reject radical climate dogma and bureaucratic red tape, as the Administration has done since Inauguration Day,” the plan says. “Simply put, we need to ‘Build, Baby, Build!’”

…

“At its core, President Trump’s AI agenda is nothing more than a thinly veiled invitation for the fossil fuel and corporate water industries to ramp up their exploitation of our environment and natural resources – all at the expense of everyday people,” said Mitch Jones, a managing director Food and Water Watch, an environmental advocacy group.

…

“Under this plan, tech giants get sweetheart deals while everyday Americans will see their electricity bills rise to subsidize discounted power for massive AI datacenters,” said JB Branch, a big-tech accountability advocate with the consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen. “States are held hostage: either stop protecting their residents from dangerous, untested AI products, or lose federal funding.”

…

“We can’t let big tech and big oil lobbyists write the rules for AI and our economy at the expense of our freedom and equality, workers and families’ wellbeing,” the coalition wrote.

…

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/23/trump-ai-climate-change

As the public support base for climate action narrows, greens have long been searching for a replacement for the climate crisis which could re-engage groups which outright reject their climate crisis claims. From 2016;

I predicted in 2017 that AI would be the winning replacement ticket. It was already obvious by then that the political right in key nations was less than enthusiastic about the climate crisis narrative. The threat to greens of permanently losing a large chunk of their audience was obvious.

What I didn’t predict in 2017 was the enormous energy footprint of AI and the AI jobs crisis would be the trigger which convinces climate activists to experiment with anti-AI activism. I thought the trigger would be fear of malevolent AI. I knew the energy demand of AI would be large, but Microsoft rehabilitating Three Mile Island nuclear plant just so they can power their AI is next level.

It is difficult to remember now, but 25 years ago the greens enjoyed bipartisan support. The greens lost bipartisan appeal when Lord Monckton convinced mainstream Republicans the climate crisis is pseudoscience.

Ever since greens have been searching for a way to reach people who are no longer convinced by their climate messaging.

The threat of millions of jobs being automated by AI dangles the possibility of resurrecting broad based political support for the green movement. If greens succeed in amplifying public fear of AI job losses, they could split the Republican base. The climate crisis component of green messaging might leave unbelievers unmoved, but you don’t have to be a Democrat to fear losing your job to AI automation.

Add to this mix the green left’s visceral hatred for President Trump, the fact President Trump is a major advocate of AI, and the fact AI campuses really do cause significant problems for communities when the supporting infrastructure is inadequate, and all the ingredients for a major green pivot to anti-AI activism appear to be in place.