Energy access gaining momentum - but is it going the right way?

Pascoe Sabido

18 October 2011

Last week was a big one for energy access: a high level conference on the topic in Oslo; during which the International Energy Agency (IEA) released a preview of their World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2011, 'Energy for All'. The growing political appetite to address the issue is clear - especially in the face of climate change. But there is a real risk that the companies profiting from fossil fuels capture the agenda and prevent truly transformative solutions.

At our Parliamentary presentation last week, Friends of the Earth showed what policies and principles were needed for such a transformation. However, as well as good policies and principles, when it comes to tackling energy access, who we ask is as important as what we ask.

Without getting too acronym-heavy, the IEA's WEO2011 shows that 40 per cent of the world still relies on traditional biomass like firewood or dried dung for cooking, heating or lighting. Within that, at least 1.3 billion don't have access to electricity, although in countries like South Africa, having theoretical access and being able to afford it are two entirely different things. 95 per cent of these people are in Sub-Saharan Africa or developing Asia, and 84 per cent are in rural areas.

So energy access is a big problem, especially rural areas where the grid can't reach. Yet the report went on to show that the projected spending for the next 20 years will be "mostly devoted to new on-grid electricity connections in urban areas... [And] will still leave 1.0 billion people without electricity... [Meanwhile] 2.7 billion will remain without clean cooking facilities in 2030".

This might explain why UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has been working furiously to highlight energy access as a major issue (2012 will be the Year of Sustainable Energy for All), and has also been setting global energy-related targets, like universal access to modern energy by 2030. But setting targets is one thing, achieving them another. If we're going to avoid the IEA's grim predictions, we need to seriously examine the energy model we're encouraging in developing countries, because evidently it's not working.

We also need to see energy in the wider context of climate change: energy generation accounts for 60 per cent of the C02 in the atmosphere, so the entire world needs to shift away from fossil fuel-generated energy. Therefore while the UN and the IEA focus on access to 'modern energy' (defined as 'clean cooking facilities' and 'a first connection to electricity'; no mention of fuel type), we need to be focusing exclusively on driving environmentally and socially appropriate renewable technologies. Ironically, in many off-grid situations, renewables are actually far cheaper than extending the grid or paying the rising price for diesel and petrol.

The alternative outlined by Friends of the Earth in Parliament is a people-centred energy access policy: tailored to each country's need but supported through a global fund that can pay for on-grid and off-grid renewable generation, a bit like the feed-in tariff in the UK. As the accompanying briefing shows, providing renewable energy to the billions currently without could transform the whole world's energy system: such a massive roll-out of renewables would bring down the price and make them cheaper than fossil fuels, thereby becoming the global default choice for energy generation. But of course it takes investment.

 Everyone agrees that to drive any significant change, increased investment is needed. The IEA calls for a five-fold increase in spending to almost US$50bn/year; UN Department of Social and Economic Affairs (UN-DESA) think double that; Friends of the Earth see at least another US$100bn/year on top of UN-DESA's estimates if we are to establish an equitable and democratic system of renewable energy generation. Whatever the sum, where it comes from remains contentious: the IEA - and many Northern governments - see the majority coming from private sources, including the unpredictable and unproven carbon markets, while Friends of the Earth are calling for upfront public investment. There's a common refrain among governments that there's no money left because of the recession. However our research into innovative sources like theRobin Hood Tax has shown that up. If combined, conservative estimates see them providing at least US$400-US$600 in extra public revenue.

So there's money out there, but harnessing it depends on political will. The same could be said for which policies and principles are adopted. If we're serious about tackling energy access and climate change, we need to look at new models and new players; not allow the reigning fossil fuel-intensive interests to keep dictating the agenda. At the energy access meeting in Oslo, civil society was vastly under-represented amidst a throng of representatives from the fossil fuel industry and government; the preliminary membership for Ban Ki-moon's High Level Panel on Sustainable Energy for All was also packed with the usual suspects. It's no good asking the wrong people the right questions: why ask a hockey player about figure skating? Ask those who know. But letting Torvill and Dean drive the agenda requires serious political courage.