Is Africa in an emissions arm lock?
First World industrialized
nations are trying to prevent African development
Dr Kelvin Kemm
The latest world environment and
climate change conference (COP-18) is taking place in Doha, Qatar. One of the
prime issues under discussion is the attempt to force countries all over the
world to adopt binding agreements to limit “carbon emissions.”
The term “carbon emissions”
really refers to emissions of carbon
dioxide gas – but “carbon” and “carbon dioxide” are two totally different
things. Carbon is a solid (think coal and charcoal) and the central building
block of hydrocarbons, whereas carbon dioxide is the gas that all humans and
animals exhale and all plants require to grow. Without carbon dioxide, all life
on Earth would cease.
It is thus not just silly to
talk of “carbon emissions.” It is also simplistic and grossly inaccurate –
except when referring to carbon particulate
matter released during the combustions of wood, dung, hydrocarbons and
other carbon-based materials. Saying “carbon emissions” also reflects the
appalling lack of scientific knowledge so prevalent today. But never mind.
The real issue is that some
people insist that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is
leading to an increased greenhouse effect, which in turn is leading to dangerous
global warming.
However, the graph of
increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last century fails to match the
graph of measured temperature increases. In fact, average global temperatures
have been essentially stable for 16 years, even as the carbon dioxide (CO2) level
has continued to rise.
Henrik Svensmark and other scientists
have shown that global temperature is much more accurately correlated to observed
sunspot activity. Sunspots reflect solar activity, specifically the sun’s
magnetic field, that affects the quantity of cosmic rays entering Earth’s
atmosphere from outer space. That in turn is linked to the proposition that
particles in the cosmic rays cause clouds to form, and varying cloud cover on
earth has a great influence on global temperatures.
Fewer cosmic rays mean fewer
clouds, more sunlight reaching the Earth, and a warmer planet. More cosmic rays
mean more clouds, more reflected sunlight, and a cooler planet.
Indeed, historical sunspot
records correlate quite well with warming and cooling trends on Earth, whereas
carbon dioxide and climate trends do not correlate well – except in one
respect. Warm periods are typically followed several centuries later by rising CO2 levels, as carbon dioxide is
released from warming ocean waters, increasing terrestrial plant growth.
Cooling periods eventually bring colder oceans, which absorb and retain greater
amounts of CO2 – and less plant growth.
Thus the CO2 argument
for global warming is very much in doubt – whereas there is a very viable, and
more plausible, alternative.
However, CO2 is
largely produced by automobiles and electricity generating power stations,
which burn the fossil fuels so loathed by Deep Ecology environmentalists. That
makes these energy, transportation and economic development sources the target
of “carbon emission” reduction schemes.
I was a delegate at COP-17 in
Durban, South Africa in 2011. As a scientist and resident of Africa, I walked
around the Africa pavilion, discussing these issues and gauging the opinions of
many people from African countries. To put it bluntly, the African
representatives were not happy.
Their general feeling was that
the First World is trying to push Africa around, bully African countries into
accepting its opinions and, even worse, adopting its supposed “solutions.”
The “solutions” include moving
away from fossil fuels and implementing supposed alternatives like wind, solar
and biofuel power. Africans were unhappy about this. They still are. They can intuitively
see that large scale wind or solar power is not practical – and biofuels mean devoting
scarce cropland, water and fertilizer to growing energy crops, instead of using
the crops for food. What Africa needs now is abundant, reliable, affordable
electricity and transportation fuel, which means producing more of the Earth’s
still abundant oil, coal and natural gas.
It is all well and good if
highly variable, expensive wind power makes up ten percent or less of an
already industrialized nation’s enormous electricity supply. If it varies significantly,
or fails entirely, even on the hottest and coldest days (as it is prone to do),
the loss of ten percent is not a disaster.
But First World countries have
been telling poor African countries to base
their futures on wind power as major portions of their national supplies.
What this implies is that, if
the wind power fails, whole sections of a country can grind to a halt. “Oh, no
problem,” say climate campaigners. “Just install a smart grid and longer
transmission lines, so that when wind is blowing somewhere in the country the
smart grid will do all the fancy switching, to make sure electricity flows to
critical functions.” In theory, maybe.
But meanwhile, in the real
world, in August 2012, industrialized Germany’s wind power was under-performing
to such a degree that the country decided it must open a new 2,200-megawatt coal-fired power station near
Cologne – and announced the immediate construction of 23 more!
Moreover, installing a smart
grid assumes that the country concerned wants to develop a major complex
national grid – and has the money to do so – or has one already. Bad
assumption.
Africa is huge. In fact, Africa
is larger than China, the United States, Europe and India added together. So it’s
a mistake to assume African countries will want to implement major national grids,
following European historical examples – or will be able to, or will have the
vast financial and technical resources to do so, or will have the highway or
rail capability to transport all the necessary components to construct
thousands of miles of transmission lines.
Even in the USA, the
electricity system in the state of Texas is not connected to the rest of the country,
and the issue of building thousands of miles of new transmission lines and
smart grids is generating controversy and serious funding questions.
In South Africa we already run
major power lines, for example from Pretoria to Cape Town, which is the same
distance as Rome to London. We need to ask:
Is it wise to keep doing this,
or should smaller independent grids be developed as well? If compulsory carbon
emissions come into force, will this limit African economic growth and African
electricity and transportation expansion?
Should Africans be told to “stay
in harmony with the land” – and thus remain impoverished and wracked by disease
and premature death – by continuing to live in an underdeveloped state, because
a dominant First World bloc believes its climate alarmism is correct, suppresses
alternative evidence, and is more than willing to impose its views on the
poorest, most politically powerless countries?
The promised billions in climate
change “mitigation” and “reparation” dollars have not materialised yet, and are
unlikely to appear any time soon. Even worse, the energy, emission and economic
growth restrictions embodied in the proposed climate agreements would prevent
factories and businesses from blossoming, perpetuate poverty, limit household
lighting and refrigeration, and impede human rights progress on our continent.
Africa should resist the
psychological and “moral” (actually immoral) pressure being exerted on it to
agree to binding limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Any such agreement would
place African countries at the mercy of bullying First World countries, put
them in a crippling emissions arm lock, and bring no health, environmental or
other benefits to Africa.
__________
Dr. Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear
physicist and business strategy consultant in Pretoria, South Africa. He is a
member of the International Board of Advisors of the Committee For A
Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), based in Washington, DC (www.CFACT.org) and received the prestigious
Lifetime Achievers Award of the National Science and Technology Forum of South
Africa.