The U.S. Government has officially discontinued a program in Africa to generate renewable energy in the interests of the environment. The program was originally initiated by President Obama in 2013, and the idea was to produce 30 000 MW of renewable energy, for underserved communities.
Such programs always sound so good when they are announced, but any major government initiative, which is operationally run by a government, invariably leads to all sorts of effects and complexities which were not adequately anticipated at the start.
The whole concept of natural market forces is built on the idea that there is a natural free market in which there is a constant push and pull, and readjustment of interaction, which takes place. This interplay results in a constant self-correcting tumble of actions, striving for the intended goal, much like a shoal of fish pursuing its food source. In contrast, a government project is more like herding cats, where each element is pursuing its own objective, like local political objectives, macro political objectives, personal income from some aspect not directed at the end goal, compounded by the lack of a central reporting line of command.
In a major government top-down exercise, most of the stabilizing interaction of a free market is lost, leading to spin-offs that were not intended.
This Obama initiative was named Power Africa, and launched via USAID. The U.S. government committed $7 billion, and furthermore the African Development Bank proposed an additional $3 billion.
This initiative involved a number of African governments such as; Kenya, Ghana, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Tanzania, and more, plus private sector partners. Can you see the trouble looming at that stage? That much influence over an array of governments, dealing with private companies. Think about it. But in 2015 the Obama administration intensified its efforts and mobilised over $20 billion in private sector commitments.
Think about that. The private sector does not donate such money. They are interested in profit. They have shareholders to report to. That means that they draw their profit from the various projects in the various African countries.
Some progress was made. A total of 600 MW was supplied by GE at the Amandi and Bridge power plants in Ghana. In Tanzania 672.26 MW of electricity generation was provided. Then the project stalled for obscure reasons.
In Nigeria, Power Africa, with USAID, arranged a $75,000,000 Technical Assistance programme. But no electricity seems to have been produced by the project.
Remember, all this effort was to improve the environment, by forcing renewable energy into African regions.
In 2019 a report by the U.S. Inspector General identified major shortcomings in the accuracy of the results presented. It showed that achievements had been overstated, since much which was reported as, ‘achieved’ had not actually materialize.
A report of 10.6 million new ‘electricity connections’ by 2017 was nearly 80% composed of distributing handheld solar lanterns.
This type of American aid is frequently seen as something either completely misreading the requirement, but even as an insult to local intelligence.
Much of this type of US-African involvement is not doing the image of the US any good at all. Africans should not be patronized, and should not be told what is good for them, by someone who has no idea of the true local circumstances.
Then, when one assesses the actual implementation, the question arises; ‘ Does this help the environment?’
The family, which has been given a solar lantern, are still going to be cooking dinner with a wood or dung fire, if they do not have electricity, as 600 million Africans don’t. They will still cut down trees to get the firewood. So, targeting energy-provision for an environmental concern, in a thrust such as Power Africa, is not really achieving either of these objectives. Supplying a small amount of lighting at night is not altering the cooking habits, or any regular daytime routine of the target population. So, the target of CO2 reduction is not happening.
When the U.S. wishes to help African countries, it is laudable, but Power Africa was not the correct approach. Rather ask the actual people of Africa what they feel they need. A prescription to an externally imposed plan does not usually work.
This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy