By: Staff writer
Namibia’s planned energy transition would immiserate the country, while contributing virtually zero to global emissions reductions, writes American science policy analyst Perry Green.
Green says Namibia’s renewable energy ambitions would have no real impact on global carbon emissions as the country’s contribution to global carbon-dioxide emissions is insignificant.
The government has committed to a 90% reduction in its carbon emissions by 2027, and to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.
Namibia is a signatory to both the Kyoto Accord and the Paris Agreement, which oblige participants to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions.
“Achieving those goals, though, would have no discernible effect on the global carbon budget. Namibia presently accounts for just 0,003% of global carbon dioxide emissions. A 90% reduction of carbon emissions would lower Namibia’s share to 0,0003%,” Green wrote in an article published in Manhattan-based City Journal last month.
Green says for Namibia to keep pace with this demographic change, the productive sectors of the economy—manufacturing, mining, and natural resources—must grow. However, he says, GDP growth currently hovers around zero to slightly negative, and per capita GDP has declined by about 10% over the last two years.
“Growth requires energy, and rapid growth requires abundant energy. But Namibia’s per capita energy consumption rate is about 30 million kilojoules per person per year, roughly one-tenth of that in the U.S. Domestic energy production—about 90% of it from hydroelectric dams on the rivers bordering the country—can meet only about one-fourth of present demand. The rest must be imported, which costs money, hinders economic development, and holds the country hostage to political turmoil in South Africa and Zimbabwe, its largest energy suppliers,” he argues.
Green added: “Namibia can expand its domestic energy sector. Fossil fuels account for only 6% of Namibia’s total energy consumption, all of which must be imported. Off Namibia’s southern coast, however, lie enough reserves of natural gas to power its economy for roughly two centuries at the present energy-consumption rate. Exploration in the eastern part of the country has identified promising oil deposits. Accounting for fracking would probably increase estimates of proven reserves.”
The analyst contends such economic development is unlikely, however, as long as the country follows green imperatives. He says if Namibia so chose, it could develop its own fossil-fuel resources to provide the cheap and abundant power it needs.
“Instead, the Namibian government has aggressively expanded solar and wind energy, which presently account for 0.5% and 4.7%, respectively, of the country’s total generating capacity. Though these technologies do not emit carbon, they leave their own environmental footprints, are risky and expensive to develop, and face possibly insurmountable obstacles to implementation worldwide,” he pointed out.
“Is this policy prudent?” he asks rhetorically, “Only if it’s funded by someone else’s money.”
Under the Green Climate Fund (GCF) of the Paris Accords, developed-world governments and corporations pay into a fund that redistributes the money to “support developing countries raise and realise their . . . ambitions towards low-emissions, climate-resilient pathways.”
Though the GCF initially intended to redistribute $100 billion annually, it has fallen far short of its goals, having pried only about $10 billion out of the developed nations. Even so, he says, the funds constitute a substantial source of revenue for developing countries.
“Namibia currently receives $110 million annually from the GCF. That sum can offset about 11% of Namibia’s current trade imbalance. And when money from other “green” investments are counted, the balance sheet becomes even rosier. The French Development Agency, for example, contributes an additional $31 million to green projects in Namibia. The German government also contributes to various projects, including $5 million to build a rural desalination plant to be powered by wind and solar,” he says.
Green says Namibia channels its GCF funds through a local government entity, the Environmental Investment Fund (EIF) which, in turn, distributes the funds to various climate activist groups, which then distribute them to their pet projects.
“Since the EIF is a government entity, its funding decisions must conform to Namibia’s climate policy,” he maintains.
“The contradiction of Namibia’s climate policy can be resolved with a simple observation: climate policy is not about climate change but about securing climate revenues. If throttling the country’s fossil-fuel sector is the price to keep that money flowing, so be it. Never mind that it will do nothing to ‘fight climate change’,” Green espouses.
