Bad beer; Cancun Climate; aid competition v cartels; microfinance meltdown; your weekly fix of Hans Rosling: links I liked

December 7, 2010

The new World Health Report: Universal health care is possible!

December 7, 2010

Shy, yet alluring campaign-to-be seeks activists with GSOH for bad puns and world domination

December 7, 2010
empty image
empty image

Sarah Best is a policy adviser on low carbon development

One of the positive twists from climate change is that it has brought attention to a long-neglected issue: poor people’s access to energy. The scary realisation that we need gargantuan amounts of investment to meet rising energy demand and keep emissions levels safe, has alerted policy wonks and leaders to a glaring failure in current energy policy. This failure has left 1.5 billion people still without access to electricity and 3 billion people using traditional biomass (e.g. dung, wood) and coal for cooking.

This is a campaign-in-the-waiting whose time has surely come. The UN certainly thinks so. Earlier this year, an advisory group set up by Ban Ki Moon called for an international campaign to achieve universal energy access by 2030. Even the International Energy Agency has caught on and included a chapter on energy access in its vast annual bible on energy markets.

But to address the problem of energy access, we need to know what we’re all talking about. The headline numbers are good for shock value but don’t tell us much about how poor people use energy, what type of service they need to stay fed and healthy, and earn a living, or what indicators can be used to measure progress.

That is why last week’s report by Practical Action is so welcome. “Poor People’s Energy Outlook 2010” (PPEO) proposes a set of minimum “energy service” standards that people need. These relate to lighting, cooking and water heating, space heating, cooling, access to information and communications, and energy for earning a living. They’ve also developed a clever energy access index that measures progress on the supply side, in terms of household fuels, electricity and mechanical power. All this will be refined over time, but they could be great advocacy tools – which is part of the thinking behind the report.

One of the quandaries for people working in this area is how far to press the links between energy access and climate change. On one hand, the political attention on climate change and climate finance provides a golden opportunity to push the “energy access” agenda. On the other hand, it could cloud some already fuzzy thinking in this area.

One type of fuzzy thinking is that using clean energy to expand access is all about addressing greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. Certainly, renewable energy technologies can be a good way to provide energy services for poor people. Solar panels in remote rural areas can be cheaper than extending the grid, not to mention avoiding the fumes and low-quality light of kerosene lamps. But mitigation has little to do with it: the PPEO highlights that, even if we only used fossil fuels to achieve universal energy access, this would still contribute less than 2% of global emissions.

Yet, donors seem to be going a bit gooey-eyed over supposed sweet-spots – looking for projects that simultaneously address climate adaptation, mitigation, energy access and poverty reduction.

There’s nothing wrong with addressing multiple problems at the same time – in fact, it’s a good thing. But I got an insight of what could happen if we don’t think clearly on this when I visited a primary school in northern Argentina earlier this year. The school had more bits of energy kit than it did students: two solar cookers (one used, one in storage); two solar water heaters (one used, one leaking); a solar heating and cooling system to regulate classroom temperatures (working); three solar panels (working); and one clay oven (used heavily, thanks to a porter who collected firewood daily so the children’s parents did not have to). The headmaster appreciated the school’s sponsor and the government programme which had installed these bits of kit. But what confounded him however was not just the duplication of efforts, but why all this was necessary when there were electricity grid lines running straight past the school just a few metres from the front door.

Picture contains: School director; solar water heater [left]; solar heating/cooling system [middle]; solar panels [rear]; out of view: grid transmission lines

Picture contains: School director; solar water heater [left]; solar heating/cooling system [middle]; solar panels [rear]; out of view: grid transmission lines.

Whether or not energy access is linked to climate change policy – or how exactly it is linked – this is definitely a campaign that needs to happen. In fact, it is surprising that campaigning hasn’t happened on any necessary scale before now, as it hits all the right popular messaging buttons.

Expanding energy access is obviously a ‘good thing’. The Millennium Development Goals can’t be achieved without it. There are “villains” aplenty: neglectful governments, affluent consumers and businesses gorging on energy subsidies, and confused donors and development banks who can’t decide whether to throw money at coal for growth or smaller-scale projects. We know what many of the barriers are and there are loads of ideas and disputes about how to overcome these (can it all be private sector-led? What role for subsidies?). Energy access involves not just technology (tick), which seems to captures people imagination more easily than weighty treaties, but also appropriate renewable energy technology (ticktickticktickticktick ad infinitum). Also, there’s loads of jargon and acronyms (do you know your CCS from your CSP from your SHS? No? Shame on you).

The issue of energy access just needs some activists. Oh, and some better puns. “Fossil fool” is good but the climate campaigners have cornered that one. A Google search on “energy jokes” didn’t give me much cause for hope. This was the best I could find (watch out, you need to channel Sean Connery for this one).

“What would a barefooted man get if he stood on an electric wire?”

Answer: “A pair of shocks”. Boo-boom.


  1. Hi Sarah,

    great post and thanks. A few thoughts:

    1. that was a terrible terrible joke and you should be ashamed of yourself.

    2. thanks for highlighting the confused motives and interventions that lead from combining energy access (right to energy) with climate change. They’re different and should be treated separately (mostly). I always say advocating for poor people’s access to sustainable energy is like campaigning for the right to organic food. idiotic.

    3. gender. i wonder how much has been written and said on the gender-differentiated benefits of access to energy – especially for domestic use. I suspect that it’s probably one of the most gender differentiated interventions imaginable. Think of the vast female labor-savings that come from domestic energy access: gathering cooking fuel, drawing water. the huge health benefits of removing soot from cooking. the improvements in physical security (and reproductive control) in having better and cheaper night-time lighting. do you have information on this?

    4. love the example of the all the solar detritus at the argentine school. I think the reality of technology development and delivery in this sector is totally shameful. another example of supply-led development interventions.


  2. Sarah/Duncan

    Fantastic that you support Practical Action’s ‘Poor People’s Energy Outlook 2010′ and work on energy more generally.

    On the issue of energy access being a ‘campaign that needs to happen’, I just wanted to mention that we at Practical Action are launching exactly that (a campaign on energy access)!

    The campaign is called ‘make the call: energy for all’ ( and encourages the EC Development Commissioner, who effectively controls the world’s biggest aid budget, to support the goal of universal energy access by 2030.

    Would love to discuss ways in which we might work together to generate support for this campaign and the issue of energy access more generally …

    Helen Marsh
    Practical Action

  3. Hi Helen and Gawain

    Thanks to you both for taking the time to read and comment on the blog. I’m clearly going to have to work on my comedy skills in the future.

    For energy and gender links, I suspect “Energia” – a network on gender and sustainable energy – is a good start for the literature ( Here’s the link to the gender pages of HEDON (household energy and development network).

    Re the primary school in Argentina, in fairness, I should add that this was part of quite big programme, which has had positive impacts – particularly in quite remote areas where grid extension is unlikely (and certainly not running past the front door). A (non-Oxfam) paper I wrote reviewing this should be out in the next couple of months.

    Congratulations to Practical Action on making the call for energy for all. We’ve already been drawing on your rich experience to think through how renewable energy relates to Oxfam’s existing programme and advocacy work, so let the conversations continue…


Leave a comment

Translate »