Blog powered by Typepad

« What actually makes a politician 'Great'? | Main | The Sunday Rumble: 3.11.19 »

Saturday, 02 November 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The Green Blob has much to answer for with despotism in Africa.

By not letting them electrify using fossil fuel power stations they centralise power and control with the elite who live in the right areas (and gas to death 600,000 poor Africans in their own homes who are obliged to cook with open biomass stoves). The chance of decentralisation and individual prosperity that gives the middle finger to authority is diminished.

Power is power.


You can insist on that until your last breath, SoD, and it will be no less false. Africa has plenty of geothermal and hydrodynamic power for now, and more importantly for the future, it also has lots of sunlight. It has no need to invest in more 19th century technology:

Fossil fuels have become nothing more than dead end international rackets. You need look no further than Russia.

It seems to me that much of Africa has given up on itself and since white Europeans are not coming back, Africans have decided to 'migrate' to Europe. They loves themselves some white people evidently.

You are right Whitewall the African dictators are in abundance even the democratic dictators! Sad when people do not stand and fight.

"Fossil fuels have become nothing more than dead end international rackets."


Much of Africa has given up on itself because there's no electricity. You simply can't survive, let alone thrive, in the modern world without it.

That's why so many Africans make the journey to places where you won't be gassed to death in your own home and the factories and offices have power and lighting.

Bob, in sub-saharan Africa most states are less than 30% electrified. Can you please get that fact into your head? Or do you actually dispute it?

Here's a map visualising it, if it helps ...


I do hope that Botswana can escape this outcome.
I have been there, working with the locals a few times. They are wonderful, happy, friendly, un-politicised people.
The government seems benevolent and not corrupt.
Their downfall will be AIDs, HIV, call it what you will, and their corrupt neighbours with their desperate, booming, escaping populations.

The Third World and First World simply don't mix well. Peoples are not interchangeable.


I don't dispute the lack of infrastructure in Africa. The points you're missing are that other power sources are available now, throwing money at obsolete technology would be a waste, and burning fossil fuel for power is also unhealthy.

Much of the developing world hasn't bothered to string wire for telephony. It's labor intensive and expensive. Why bother when cell technology is available?:

"Almost no one in Nigeria, Ghana, Bangladesh and Uganda owns a landline telephone. Many people worldwide are skipping the fixed telephone line that many Americans grew up with, and this fact is most apparent in many emerging and developing nations. Only 1% of the population in Nigeria, Ghana, Bangladesh and Uganda say they own a working landline telephone in their household, while 89% in Nigeria, 83% in Ghana, 76% in Bangladesh and 65% in Uganda own cell phones. This compares with 60% landline penetration in the U.S."

The same is true of fossil use vs. renewable:

Your assertion sounds like a fossil fuel industry talking point.


Forgot a point:

"However, by far the greatest energy fatalities that result from energy generation by humanity, is the creation of air pollution. The most lethal of which, particulate matter, which is primarily generated from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass is (counting outdoor air pollution effects only) estimated to cause 2.1[4][5] to 4.21 million deaths annually."

"However, by far the greatest energy fatalities that result from energy generation by humanity, is the creation of air pollution. The most lethal of which [is] particulate matter."

Interesting that California, possibly the state possessed of the greatest amount of renewable energy sources has, currently, about the same percentage of its area electricity free.

And isn't "harnessing" its burning of biomass.

So much for Califrica being the "Sunshine state" (or is that Florida)?

Another good point, JK. Deaths caused by petroleum products contaminating aquifers hasn't been studied extensively:

"A part of the Keystone Pipeline was shut down after it was discovered the system leaked about 383,000 gallons — or 9,120 barrels — of crude oil in North Dakota.

The leak, which occurred northwest of Edinburg, North Dakota, affected a wetland area, Karl Rockeman, director of the state’s Department of Environmental Quality’s division of water quality, said in a statement."

And of those 2-4 million deaths 600,000 are in Africa where biomass is burned in homes for cooking.

The net effect of switching to fossil-fueled power stations and away from burning fossil fuels in the the room in which you are sitting and eating is obvious.

Your attempt to conflate primitive open stove in-your-house fossil fuel burning with the same injuriousness to health as remote fossil-fuel power stations is ludicrous. Sure both kill, but given cooking is necessary or everyone dies then you have to take the one that has kills less, and that's electricity from remote power stations.

Forcing an entire continent to wait decades for green blob tech to step in while open stove cooking in their homes is murder, not even manslaughter, because it's done in the full knowledge of the killing.



Sorry, your argument still doesn't hold up:

If you want more search "deaths africa oil".

Primitive indoor cooking kills about the same numbers as air pollution, and centralized power (isn't that anti-libertarian?) is not the only answer:

There's more available at the home page:

The comments to this entry are closed.