Misplaced Virtue Signaling

What’s wrong with touting avoided emissions in countries with no emissions

In some policy circles, a new dogma holds that the only way to tackle climate change is for every nation to reduce its emissions. This seems to include even extremely poor countries with near-zero emissions. And so we’re seeing the bizarre spectacle of emissions reductions in such countries celebrated by international agencies.

At best, this is misplaced virtue signaling. At worst, when you consider the immense development needs of these countries and the minuscule contribution these countries have made (and are still making) to the climate problem, it’s counterproductive and immoral. 

So there is no misunderstanding of what I’m saying, my priors on poor countries and climate action:

• All countries, no exceptions, need to get on a low-carbon pathway.

• Poor countries especially should be aiming for the latest, most efficient, and lowest-cost energy technologies to deliver economic development and jobs. 

• The donor community should absolutely lean on the scale with cheaper finance and other assistance to nudge countries toward the cleanest tech and to spur faster deployment. 

That all said, touting avoided emissions in places with near-zero emissions is just cringe. Here are two examples:

The UN celebrating Burkina Faso’s emissions reduction target

The World Bank touting reduced emissions from a solar farm in the Central African Republic. 

Ok, maybe these are just examples of very poor communications. I mean, Burkina Faso’s current emissions are 0.3 tonnes per capita, so one way to interpret this is the UN saying, “Yay, let’s cut every Burkinabe’s emissions to 0.2 tonnes!” I highly doubt they intend that. 

CAR’s emissions are even lower, just 0.04 tonnes per person in the latest data. And building a solar farm there is probably a good thing (as long as it helps regular citizens more than the murderous Russian-backed junta). But the climate benefits are nonetheless pretty dubious, and highlighting them in a place like CAR seems excruciatingly tone-deaf.

It’s especially awkward when you line up Burkina and CAR’s emissions alongside the rest of the world.

So, what’s the actual problem with agencies extolling mitigation benefits in ultra-low-emissions countries? 

Besides the terrible, awful, no good optics, they reflect a distorted sense of what’s expected of all countries. Such tactics: 

1. Mislead on the source of the problem by reinforcing the (mistaken) notion that we can meaningfully tackle a global collective action problem via actions in the poorest countries. If Africa’s entire emissions went to zero tomorrow, we’d see barely any measurable benefit because the region’s emissions are so low. All of Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for just 1.1% of total global emissions in 2022, excluding the one (relatively high) outlier, South Africa. That 1.1% is the same amount as the one-year global increase that same year. And alarmist predictions of ballooning future emissions are also utterly implausible, and little more than scaremongering. 

2. Confuse development priorities by conflating mitigation with adaptation. Yes, Burkina and CAR – and all of the other 54 countries below 1 tonne CO2 per capita – need more energy in order for people to live better lives and for businesses to be able to operate and grow. Energy a first-order development problem for these countries, where per capita electricity use is too low to enable people to make a decent living. The urgent climate problem for them is adaptation – the ability to withstand the impact of climate change caused by other parts of the world. And adaptation, really, is development. 

3. Flip climate justice on its head. If we’re really “all in this together,” then some measure of fairness must be grounded in historic responsibility. Climate change is greatly harming these countries, but the suffering is not from their own emissions but from the wealthy nations. Again, the data suggests exactly where the climate action must take place. Sub-Saharan Africa is responsible for just 1.9% of cumulative emissions – a figure that falls to 0.6% if we exclude anomalous South Africa.

Bottom line → Let’s stop overselling emissions benefits in ultra-low emissions countries with other pressing needs

So, let's absolutely continue to find ways to invest in the world’s poorest countries, including a lot more clean power in the countries that need it the most. But let’s not pretend we’re combating climate change by investing in solar projects in the Sahel. Trumpeting the emissions benefits of projects in extremely poor places like Burkina and CAR is a disservice to effective climate policy, misleading on development priorities, and – arguably worst all – just wrong.