Africa’s fight against poverty will be hampered if it is forced onto one path of energy generation.

According to Ugandan President Yoweri K. Museveni, Africa needs balance in its energy mix, not just a rush for renewables as advocated by western aid organizations and development NGOs.

At COP26 in November, an agreement for the world and the future will be struck. But this cannot happen without the clear consent of the fifty-four African states, nor at the expense of their future development.

This is because Africa is the future: our current population of 1.3 billion people is expected to quadruple by 2050, a realistic projection given that a new malaria vaccine (the leading cause of death on our continent, according to Covid) is now available. By the middle of the century, the world will have at least five times the number of Africans as Europeans, and will have exceeded them in terms of power usage.

This shift in demographics and development has far-reaching ramifications for energy production and resource management.

Future citizens have the right to demand more electricity at lower prices than their forefathers had access to. If they don’t get it, there will be no progress on the continent, which will inevitably lead to instability and more huge economic migrations like the ones we’re seeing now between Africa and Europe.

Of course, if jobs are produced and affluence is increased, this can be prevented. To do so, however, Africa – and the rest of the globe – must make difficult decisions about the future of power generation, which are often avoided and ignored.

Of course, simple decisions are made. Money pours into wind and solar projects on both local and large sizes, fueled in large part by what can only be described as a western aid-industrial complex of NGOs and governmental development agencies.

This appeases their backers while also enhancing their environmental credentials. Too often, it leaves Africans with less reliable and more expensive electricity, reliant on backup diesel generators or batteries to discharge power when the wind does not blow.

While such generators are harmful, so is lithium for batteries and even more, allowing Africans to cut down trees and farm in swamps due to a lack of energy, significantly degrading river streams and limiting rainfall.

The highly coveted metal, which is required to power future technology, is both energy consuming and environmentally destructive to mine.

It appears that zealous environmentalists have forgotten that there is an equal and opposite reaction to every action: that in their drive for electric cars and clean energy, they risk replacing the previous century’s quest for fossil fuels with a new worldwide competition for lithium.

Where major reserves are found, such as in Africa, geopolitical stability may be jeopardized.

The inconvenient truth is that there is no single green bullet that can be deployed in Africa or around the world that will address environmental concerns while also providing the power to fuel hope for greater wealth and progress for the additional one billion people who will make up our future African population.

However, in multiplicity and equilibrium, there are solutions to be found. There are currently underutilized, yet environmentally friendly, low-cost, and viable generation methods that should be incorporated in Africa’s future energy mix. Mini-hydro technologies have lately been created.

They allow for 24-hour energy production and can be installed along minor rivers without the need for battery backup: with turbines that allow fish to swim through without being harmed, they have the potential to alleviate many of the previous environmental concerns about traditional hydropower damage to waterways and aquatic life.

There’s also the possibility of converting existing coal-fired power plants to biomass — and perhaps a future with carbon capture. Given that most arable land in Africa is uncultivated, the energy potential of crops might be transformative.

There’s even nuclear power. Only South Africa has an atomic power plant, but Algeria, Ghana, and Nigeria have research reactors with the goal of constructing full-scale nuclear power plants in the future.

In some ways, the answer has always been obvious: Africa need a “All of the Above Strategy” to provide the correct energy mix that is both green, reliable, and plentiful – as well as geopolitically stable.

However, this is not yet available to Africa. Instead, we’re told that we must transition from low energy use to only a few types of new energy production, while others are off-limits. Solar and wind power are preferred, despite their limitations. Transitioning to a lower-carbon energy source is frowned upon.

Many Western countries have enacted blanket bans on foreign fossil fuel projects. While this may seem rational in the case of coal, it also prevents natural gas production.

However, having access to reliable power is one of the most effective antidotes to poverty. Without stable energy supplies, manufacturing on the continent – where major future development is expected – will struggle to attract investment and so create jobs.

Natural gas’ potential for synthetic fertilizer, as well as its ability to power efficient freight and transportation networks, will hurt agriculture and food production on the continent.

Barring funding for everything except the greenest projects is a mistake, given that Africa produces so little of the world’s carbon emissions.

It’s also hypocritical, given that natural gas is a crucial part of many Western nations’ transitions. Furthermore, if Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa) tripled its electricity use overnight on gas, world emissions would increase by only 0.6 percent.

Africa requires dependable energy. Having a variety of options does not preclude the development of renewables.

However, pushing Africa to take one path will stymie its struggle against poverty.