Is the UK going electric or just shocking everyone?

Mr Sunak’s announcement elicited robust criticism from familiar critics, with former US vice president Al Gore issuing a blistering attack on the British Prime Minister.

“I find it shocking and truly disappointing; I believe Rishi Sunak has made a misstep. Fossil fuel companies have used their wealth to impede progress; they excel at influencing politicians more than reducing emissions. It’s evident when they have a grip on one,” Mr Gore said.

First and foremost, I commend the British prime minister for initiating a substantive discussion about the fairness of the energy transition. It is untenable that the burden of this transition should fall disproportionately on the world’s most impoverished populations. If the British people find this transition financially demanding, one can only imagine the hardships faced by countries like Uganda.

In pursuit of the Paris Climate Agreement’s objective to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050, we must maintain an average emission rate of 2 tonnes per person annually. Presently, the UK emits an average of 5.2 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per person each year. To be fair, many industrialised nations emit significantly more carbon than the UK.

In Uganda, we release just 0.14 tonnes of carbon per person per year, well below the global average. However, this isn’t a source of pride; it results from our pre-industrialised status and poverty. To meet the targets set by affluent nations in the Paris Agreement, we would need to increase our emissions nearly twentyfold. For perspective, the United States consumes nearly 20 million barrels of oil daily, while the entire continent of Africa, with its one billion inhabitants, consumes only four million barrels daily.

The ongoing transition debate should consider all these nuances before prescribing solutions. The approach outlined in the Paris Climate Agreement is, in fact, quite sensible. It advocates for “common but differentiated responsibilities”. It’s crucial to comprehend that while the world must decarbonise, Africa must also industrialise. This doesn’t mean we should have a license to pollute, destroy natural resources, or harm the environment in the name of industrialisation. Nevertheless, we must never view poverty as an environmentally friendly strategy. The underdevelopment of Africa benefits no one. As we speak, thousands of Africans undertake perilous journeys across seas and deserts, creating a severe migrant crisis in Europe. The underdevelopment of Africa is becoming costly for all.

The notion that countries like Uganda should refrain from developing their oil and gas resources in the name of saving the planet is, at best, absurd. The idea that we should phase out fossil fuels by preventing “new fossil fuel projects,” effectively leaving Uganda’s oil untapped, epitomises climate injustice.

Halting fossil fuel investments merely reduces the oil supply while demand continues to rise, leading to higher fuel prices. Elevated oil prices primarily benefit wealthy oil companies, hitting the poorest individuals the hardest, as motorists in Uganda and globally have experienced in recent weeks.

We all recognise the necessity of embracing the energy transition. However, it must be a just transition. Anything else would just be a charade.

The writer is an advocate and partner at Kampala Associated Advocates

[email protected]