World news and politics.

[Toebash]

* erg...



Yep....There is a legitimate debate here. Africa has a huge energy-access problem, and affordable and reliable electricity is essential for manufacturing, healthcare, education, transport and jobs.....

If African countries want sustained economic growth, industrialisation and rising living standards, access to abundant, reliable and affordable electricity is fundamental.

Most African countries have contributed relatively little to historical greenhouse-gas emissions, yet they are being asked to adopt climate policies designed largely by wealthy Western countries that industrialised using fossil fuels.

It feels somewhat hypocritical.....

Given that renewable electricity (particularly in Africa, with high solar insolation) is by far the cheapest new power source, the best way for Africans to access cheap and reliable electricity going forward is by building renewables.

This is a question of political will and desire to go electric at this time. 86% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels. Now that 14% or so is very impressive all things considered however we have to consider the following regions of the world.

Countries representing 88% of all current greenhouse gas emissions have a net-zero target. The vast majority of those have made that target by 2050, while a couple of important ones are a little later (China is 2060 for example). So there's clearly political will and desire to go electric and cut fossil fuel use.

While 86% (80% on most current estimates I've seen but I won't quibble) of the world's current energy needs comes from fossil fuels, the whole point is that appropriate technology only been developed within the last decade, and it will a few decades to make the transition.

Saudi Arabia, UAE and Norway will not be fucked. They've been planning for the energy transition for a long time and have war chests of literally trillions of dollars which they can put in their own renewables, or lend money out to others for it, or as they've been doing diversifying their revenue streams.

I know those various countries have taken steps to diversify their economies, but in circumstances where fossil fuel exports continue to represent approximately 80% (Saudi), 65% (Norway) and 45% (UAE) of exports, they're still clearly going to have a difficult time. For reference, Australia is around 25%.

The rest of your post is about coal, which has no relevance whatsoever about whether Britain ought to drill more for North Sea gas.

As a broader point, I just don't understand the continued enthusiasm and sympathy by some on this forum for fossil fuel use. They damage the environment massively, cause climate change which will ultimately cost us trillions, leave Australia beholden to geopolitical vagaries over which we largely have no control, AND they are more expensive than the alternatives. Why do people on here feel such a loyalty to them?