The world has two energy problems: one for the rich who burn too much and one for the poor who have too little. Euan Ritchie, a policy analyst at the Center for Global Development Europe, put it more bluntly and accused the U.S. and Britain of climate hypocrisy for emitting tons of carbon per capita but complaining about energy projects in countries where most people live in energy poverty.
Ritchie produced a calendar where he demonstrates that an average American emits more carbon by the end of New Year’s Day than a person in the Democratic Republic of Congo does in a year. By the 9th day of the year, the American has emitted more than a Kenyan has in a year.
Ritchie complains that at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), donor countries pledged they would not finance any more fossil fuel development in low-income countries (LICs), even though a few gas pipelines would raise their standard of living and reduce their energy poverty, with a tiny addition to global emissions.
Hypocrisy is a subject we talk about a lot on Treehugger—contributor Sami Grover even wrote a book titled “We’re All Climate Hypocrites Now.” In my own book, “Living the 1.5 Degree Lifestyle,” I noted that “any fair and equitable division of the carbon budget has to allow headroom for those suffering from energy poverty to get a little more of it.”
The pink bubbles from the Our World in Data graphic above shows those in energy poverty versus the blue bubbles where carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are way too high. But Ritchie’s claims that LICs should get funding for building fossil fuel projects raised some questions and concerns.
I asked him: “It is true that much of the world is way below the 2.5 tonnes of emissions per capita average that we have to get to and that the rich North has to bear the brunt of reductions. But if we are going to help raise LICs out of energy poverty, should the investment not be in alternatives that are carbon-free, like renewable electricity, instead of getting more people locked into gas?”
Ritchie responded:
One could argue about many of these points, including whether in the United Kingdom it was a good thing to get locked into natural gas as they are now in almost every home. But one cannot argue with the fact that dirty cooking fuels shorten the lives of millions or that we are indeed being hypocritical in the rich West. I put the question to our expert on hypocrisy, Grover, who responded:
It is not for me to say either, although we have seen the results of natural gas “lock-in” around the world—once you are hooked up to the pipe it is pretty easy to get addicted. Also, as we saw when we first piped water into homes 150 years ago, its use went up exponentially when people no longer had to carry it.
I remain unconvinced that investing in new gas infrastructure is a good idea anywhere in the world or that the impact of it would be as small as is suggested. But Ritchie is right about us being hypocrites if we are not dealing with our own, far greater emissions first.
