A Power Balance Shifts as Europe, Facing a Gas Crisis, Turns to Africa for Help

Most African leaders can’t lay claim to the moral high ground. I spent a career investing in Africa - a good part of it is a barely functioning kleptocracy and the rest is just simply dysfunctional. Is it any wonder that the Chinese have been welcomed with open arms? They don’t have to play by the same rules as Western companies, which enables them to bribe politicians with impunity. Transitioning to a post-carbon economy is very much a First World construct. But given our outsized per capita energy consumption, we can still do our part by reducing the amount of power we use. Wagging our fingers at Africa is a waste of time.

So the morally superior Europeans pay attention to us inferior races only when they need something from us?

Talking about double standards - why would African governments want to burn more gas when they have unlimited access to much cheaper solar and wind power?

The Chinese and Europeans are not going to be dangling as concessions a water treatment plant, paved roads, or a modern power grid. They will offer trips to discos and brothels for those in charge; private school education and new cars to their children; and lethal crowd control for their military. Historically, African leaders have shown little concern for the welfare of few outside of their immediate family, although they will throw some crumbs to members of their own tribe to ensure that they can stay in power. Otherwise, its Swiss bank accounts, houses in the French Riviera, Mercedes SUVs, and shopping trips to Milan. What has changed?

Portugal and Spain knew this long ago!

The leaders of Africa would serve their people well by taking any opportunities to develop renewable energy infrastructure in Africa.

Most if not all of this effort will be fruitless. Should they manage to build the infrastructure, it will be sabotaged and out of commission 300 days a year. Lebanon and Israel fossil fuels to Europe at least has a shot at being successful.

Hopefully this can help lift many people out of poverty.

If you want to reduce fossil fuel dependence there is only one way to do so--have an alternative in place that can go head to head on the market. Calls for cutting off fossil fuels without other energy infrastructure in place is fool's errand. See: Germany boycotting Russian fossil fuels while simultaneously shutting down their nuclear plants.

Resentment of colonialism shapes much of Africa's posture towards Europe. African leaders have accused Europe of “double standard” when it comes to reducing carbon footprint. They say Europe hasn't done enough to help them finance the transition to green energy, while Africa has contributed the least of any continent to global warming. They insist on their citizens' right to improve living standard, and Europe’s demand could undo the little progress in development they have made so far. Now the urgency in Europe to replace Russian fuels with imports from Africa provide African leaders the opportunity to demand Europeans to finance their gas projects. Ideally the funds would create jobs and lift hundreds of millions out of poverty. Given the high-level and systemic corruption that has created multiple socio-economic grievances across the continent, African leaders can't be trusted. They are just like Putin and his oligarchs, who plunder Russia’s resources and line their pockets with revenues from energy exports. In Congo, President Félix Tschisekedi ignored John Kerry’s request and is selling 30 oil and gas drilling blocks across the Congo Basin, including some in the Virunga Park. The Basin covers 1.3 billion acres, spanning across 6 nations. Its trees absorb about 4% of the world's annual carbon emissions. While we, Europeans are relieved to find in Africa a source of gas supply, we must reduce our reliance on energy imports from corrupt, autocratic regimes.

It would seem Western Europe should inherit a degree of responsibility for sub-Sahara Africa. Prior colonialism should demand it. By 2030, one in five people living on the planet will be concentrated in sub-Sahara Africa. And by that year, nine in ten people, living in extreme poverty, will be from that area.

its still probably not cost effective, but its better to burn gas if you have your own supply then coal, but i don't know why you would want to build a new gas plant when new sources are much cheeper, and compared to many plants i have heard described, pretty much as reliable (mostly coal plants, don't remember were, but there was an article here about it) natural gas has the wealthier nations in the world by the neck, so yes, poor nations should be free to profit from it, but its not a good path to start down

So these conversations are happening in tandem with the reparations conversations? How can countries argue that wealthier countries need to compensate them for not causing as much climate change while selling us more & more fuels?

Here's a bet on international chaos following a race to the bottom between nations

This doesn't sound like a good solution and definitely not a good partnership with those who are upfront about their hostility to Europe and the feeling they have been abused. ....not a good basis for mutual benefit. On the other hand, there are already Russian pipelines in place that could be used with no need for additional environmental destruction. So, even with current supplies at a premium, it seems more practical to weather the storm over the coming months. Hopefully, there will be cooler heads that will prevail in Russia as they see their war going badly. An arrangement for a peacekeeping force over territory around the lines that would secure supply could be out in place with proceeds, after Ukrainian restitution, going into a fund for the Russian people and administered by a non profit. It may seem like a fantasy but the African "solution" is just another can of worms that will unleash more destructive elements. Frankly, rather than this, nuclear power is preferable.

It’s painful for Africa to watch the US drilling the heck out of Texas, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, and seeing that open holes in Texas are allowed to remain uncapped as long they don’t emit over a certain amount methane according to Texas law, and then get lectured on having to control their rainforest and go green. It’s not about just “infantilizing”, it about controlling the market price and finance. In the past, the oil and now gas are generally schedule to be shipped out of Africa from offshore platforms without any benefit reaching the citizens of those countries on shore, who are burning down sticks from trees to cook with and whose countries have only a 25 or 37 percent electricity coverage with frequent blackout. And the African presidents often taking a big cut (I’m looking at you Equatorial Guinea Teo with you back account across from the Congress building in DC). Of course it looks like hypocrisy to Africans. Condescension is not a new form of colonization.

This is positive in an otherwise horror story of Russian war crimes against Ukraine. It could help break the energy dependence on Saudi Arabia and Russia, until alternative energy becomes universal.

I found it interesting how the war in Ukraine affecting western countries as far as energy use which lead them to turn to African countries. I’m curious to know how our African leaders now and in the future will set the tone for a partnership with those countries in a way that we as Africans can benefit from those investments for the good of our economies.

This whole climate thing is full of double talk. Here in the US our midterm elections are based on the price of a gallon of gas. In Europe they want cheap natural gas from a place where many people don't have running water or lights. If a politician here or in Europe should suggest cutting back on our standard of living they are thrown out of office.

We could throw trillions into our economy without knowing how it was utilized. Yet we can't afford $100 billion a year for Africa and other poor countries?

The real question is, why did Europe boycott Russian Gas while buying oil for decades from Saudi Arabia?

Ha, ha. After a 42 year career in the oil bidness, I can tell you for a fact that Europe must import as much oil and gas as possible from Russia and the Middle East in order to remain competitive industrially. Sure, Algeria will continue producing gas and LNG but that's a pittance. US LNG is at a premium and has always been at a premium than pipelined gas. It's understandable that Korea, Japan and, to a lesser degree Indonesia, must import LNG as pipelines are out of the question and so exporters enjoy a premium. But Europe cannot afford to keep paying the artificial premium that the US is enjoying.

Russia’s gas cutoff, a foreseeable response to sanctions imposed by the US and European countries (not to mention the billions of dollars in aid and weaponry to Ukraine), has created a real and pressing need for temporary and near-term revival of non-green energy sources in Europe and elsewhere. Unfortunately, these multi-billion-dollar deals between European and African countries will inevitably lead to vast sums of money being siphoned into the pockets of corrupt African leaders, with little benefit trickling down to the citizens of these countries. Especially troubling is the fact that the new energy resources will be sent to European countries, not utilized in the African countries where they are produced. I believe this is referred to as neo-colonialism.

How will countries like the Congo get their gas to Europe? The article mentions a pipeline from Algeria to Italy. Is this accessible to Mozambique and Senegal? I assume LNG is out of the question.

Too bad that Africa doesn't have a vast desert that could be used for solar farms.

And the other article says there is for now glut of gas for Europe

African nations must harness the power needed to develop their economies and mitigate migration. Power is the magic ingredient This requires use of indigenous gas, oil and renewables. This is long overdue. The rest of the globe has been using FF to develop since the 1860’s, much imported from Africa in the last 100 years. It is “we” who brought the globe to the CC abyss. Yet, how dare “we” say you can’t use your resources to improve lives of your people? Gas should be exploited for the people of Africa and, to the extent possible, exported to the more developed countries. Ultimately, Africa will also need to transition to renewables. But, in the interim, their own resources - if developed and managed properly - can make a huge difference to so many. This is true irrespective of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,

Excuse my whiplash, but the same morning I’m reading in another story that the war in Ukraine is pushing Ukrainians to go solar and geothermal which is good for climate change, but here I read the same is pushing the EU to resume its old colonial ways in Africa when it comes to gas and oil development and production which is bad for climate change. Does anyone at the paper look at it before it goes out or is the message these days supposed to be total mixed up confusion?

cui bono? Actually, who owns the oil sources in Africa, is it the people or the usual transnationals?

I'm still wondering why the UK and others in Europe refuse to tap their own natural gas reserves. It seems somewhat hypocritical to ban domestic drilling for environmental reasons yet buy that same product from a country that doesn't have the same regulatory protections in place.

The purchase of more gas from countries with massive corruption will not have beneficial effects. Wishful thinking at work.

The countries might have more power but its likely that just means more corruption and profiteering by those in charge. They will sell out their nations resources for their own benefit leaving the populations to starve and suffer to the point that we will have to be constantly providing aid to the citizens while the powerful factions fight over the spoils.

Its appalling that the West invested in North Stream 2 despite having at least already North Stream 1 and a pipeline through Ukraine and not into Africa, instead telling them that oil+gas and the environment don't mix. I fear they are rightfully complaining about the West's double standards. Worse, in the current situation, them seemingly becoming an irreplaceable energy supplier to Europe, we are not in a position to "berate" them about human rights. Had we helped them develop their fields earlier, we would have had better chances on the human rights side. And don't get me wrong about human rights, a find them important but I find it futile to berate somebody you are dependent on about them, it will not change anything but come across as arrogance.

"More than 600 million Africans do not have access to power and nearly a billion use firewood and charcoal, fuels that are causing significant respiratory problems and death, to heat their homes and to cook." Help them help you. Go fast. Why? Africans, especially the poor, deserve the same energy benefits we drive from natural gas. It is a great transition fuel as we shift to cleaner fuels. And finally, enabling Africa to provide more gas to Europe hastens the failure of Putin's strategy. PS: Utilizing natural gas to create electricity for EV's is far better than burning coal for the same goal.

I hope former European colonies in Africa make EU countries pay through the nose for the opportunity to destroy the environment there. As for investing $8.5 billion in South Africa, why isn’t the EU also pressuring coal chugging EU countries like Germany to go green? Instead, Germany is firing up more coal fired plants. The Paris Agreement fell apart rapidly once Europeans began to feel the tiniest pain at the pump. Their hypocrisy is staggering.

i wish you would explain the seemingly absurd reasons how in reading these stories we are to swallow our impending incineration thru irreversible climate change?

I get so tired of rich people in America who lecture others on climate change while they rebuild and remodel huge homes, drive giant cars, and fly everywhere. Even the liberal environmentalists in America are giant consumers. We have absolutely no business telling Africa how to live.

African nations should exploit this opportunity just as they have been exploited by white Europeans for centuries. Charge three time the current pricing for centuries of imperialism.

Imagine if Europe could import solar energy from Africa instead of gas from Russia. Win-Win par excellence.

Happy the African leaders stand up to the West. They should double the price for the centuries of colonialism and racism brought into their countries by white Europeans. No triple the price.

Would anyone be surprised when and if the Europeans discover as they “move towards Africa” that the Chinese have been investing there for a while and just might have more than a little political and economic sway on decisions?