The prolonged conflict in Ukraine is undermining European perceptions of climate change. If there are any remaining questions about where Europe stands, the recent global energy crisis has made Europe’s ambivalent stance on fossil fuels abundantly clear. The battle in Ukraine has revealed that all of Europe’s efforts to combat climate change have been a sham. The current crisis has also demonstrated that economic growth and energy security have always come first in Europe, and climate commitments will have to be postponed for the foreseeable future. The question now is whether countries such as Botswana with estimated coal reserves of 200 billion tonnes are learning anything.
Global energy shortages have pushed the European Union (EU) to the precipice. The EU is now turning back to dirtier fossil fuels which they have been encouraging global institutions such as the World Bank to stop financing. In Germany, coal plants which were scheduled for closure will now be operating full throttle to compensate for the energy interruptions and a possible shutoff of Russian gas exports. Germany is also in talks with Senegal. Italy is negotiating gas deals with Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Oil and gas production is also being ramped up in the United States of America (USA), Britain, Norway, among others. This is all in diametric contradiction to their global climate goals they were pursuing at COP26.
A commentator who spoke to this publication on condition of anonymity said Botswana must be wary of western interests pushing her to renounce the use of fossil fuels. “Some Western governments were calling for global institutions such as the World Bank to stop financing all fossil fuel projects. European countries such as Sweden even suggested drastic measures by proposing a total ban by the end of 2024,” he says.
“So why is it okay for the EU to play by a different set of rules?” he asks, adding that “the West is simply interested in Africa for exploitation purposes, and not for development purposes”.
Other energy experts say when the West’s energy security and economic growth are under threat as they are now due to the war in Ukraine, climate goals are shelved in the blink of an eye and pushed to the back burner. They also argue that in the transition to renewable energy from fossil fuels, Africa must not rush to move with the same pace as the West, but instead should use fossil fuels to develop their economies and generate enough revenue to fund green projects that could be an alternative source of energy.
Last year, the leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) nations agreed to end overseas coal financing. Awkwardly, the G7 leaders who met in Germany recently agreed that exceptions would likely apply to projects that would allow for more shipments of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) to their countries. What is even more surprising is the fact that the European parliament voted in favour of calling natural gas “green” or “sustainable” source of energy which contradicts their pleas to the world to rapidly decarbonise.
Several months ago, Botswana signed up to shift and reduce the use of coal at the COP26. However, Botswana chose not to sign a pledge to stop issuing new licences to mine fossil fuels. Botswana’s increasing use of coal always goes back to the fact that the country wants to be less dependent on energy importation from countries like South Africa. This is why Botswana seems to be ramping up its use of coal power plants. Any transition to green energy will be a slow process and Botswana is not to blame. Neighbouring South Africa will phase out coal in an agreement called the Just Transition, which will see $18 billion being allocated to the country to assist with the transition away from coal. However, Botswana is likely to face climate funding difficulties as long as it does not have a clear roadmap on how it intends to end the use of coal.
Africa must no longer be treated as an object of the West, but a vital partner in global cooperation.
