Online Reporter
Cliff Chiduku
The politics of climate change has never been as urgent, contested and complicated as it is today.
At the heart of this debate is the question of fossil fuels: How quickly should the world stop using coal, oil and gas, and who should bear the greatest responsibility for doing so?
The scientific case is clear — burning fossil fuels is the single largest driver of climate change, releasing billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year.
But the political case is far more nuanced, tangled in questions of equity, development, finance and justice.
Scientists warn that climate change is intensifying extreme weather events such as heatwaves, droughts, floods, cyclones and wildfires across the world.
In Europe, prolonged heat and dryness are fuelling wildfires of unprecedented intensity.
The European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service confirms that the continent has been warming at twice the global average since the 1980s.
The year 2024 was the hottest ever recorded globally, with the second-highest number of “heat stress” days on record.
These facts underscore a simple truth: Phasing out fossil fuels is not optional but critical and urgent.
Every additional tonne of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere further upsets the environment.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has repeatedly stated that global greenhouse gas emissions must be cut by almost half by 2030 to keep global warming within the 1.5°C threshold set under the Paris Agreement.
In principle, this means all countries should scale down fossil fuel use and quickly transition to renewable energy.
But in practice, the politics of who moves first, how fast and with what resources remains deeply divisive.
The central political fault line in climate negotiations is between the Global North and the Global South.
Wealthy industrialised countries built their prosperity on the back of unfettered fossil fuel consumption during the 19th and 20th centuries. Britain, the United States, Germany and others industrialised using coal and later oil, generating the bulk of the cumulative carbon emissions currently warming the planet.
By contrast, most African, Asian and Latin American countries industrialised late or remain largely underdeveloped.
Their historical contribution to emissions is negligible, yet they now face mounting pressure to curb fossil fuel use while simultaneously grappling with widespread poverty, unemployment and energy deficits.
The question then becomes: Should the Global South be asked to abandon the very development path that the Global North used to build its wealth?
For many in Africa, the answer is no — at least not without adequate support.
Africa is home to 17 percent of the world’s population but accounts for less than 4 percent of global carbon emissions.
Yet it is also the continent most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change — from recurring droughts in the Sahel to cyclones in Mozambique, and from desertification in North Africa to erratic rainfall patterns in Southern Africa.
Energy access remains a central development challenge.
More than 600 million Africans still lack access to electricity, while over 900 million rely on traditional biomass for cooking.
Admittedly, renewable energy has made inroads but remains limited. Solar energy, for example, accounts for just 3 percent of Africa’s electricity generation.
Overall, renewables contribute about 24 percent of electricity supply on the continent, 76 percent of which comes from hydropower — itself highly vulnerable to droughts and changing rainfall patterns linked to climate change.
Transitioning away from fossil fuels is, therefore, not as straightforward for Africa as it is for Europe.
African countries still rely heavily on coal, oil and gas to power their economies, create jobs and industrialise.
The International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that Africa needs between US$1,6 trillion and US$1,9 trillion by 2030 to transition away from fossil fuels. It is disheartening to note that much of the available climate finance is being provided as loans rather than grants, exposing the continent to debt.
Without access to enough climate finance, expecting African countries to rapidly phase out fossil fuels is unrealistic.
At the heart of the politics of fossil fuels is the principle of climate justice.
Put simply, those who contributed least to the climate problem should not be asked to sacrifice the most.
The Global North’s economies were built on centuries of coal and oil use.
Yet when developing nations seek to use the same resources for growth, they are told to stop — often without being provided viable alternatives.
This hypocrisy is hard to ignore.
European countries continue to subsidise fossil fuel consumption and production while pressuring Africa to abandon its reserves.
The US remains the world’s largest oil producer, even as it positions itself as a climate leader.
Meanwhile, developing nations are told to “leave it in the ground” when it comes to their coal or gas deposits.
Zimbabwe offers a microcosm of Africa’s dilemma.
The country generates most of its electricity from hydropower at Kariba Dam and coal-fired power plants in Hwange.
But climate change-induced droughts have drastically reduced water levels in Lake Kariba, cutting hydropower generation and plunging the country into rolling blackouts.
In such circumstances, expanding coal and gas use is not a luxury but a necessity to keep the lights on.
Yet Zimbabwe, like other African nations, has also made binding commitments under the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Reconciling these commitments with the urgent need for reliable energy places the country in a tight spot.
In the absence of substantial climate finance, insisting that Zimbabwe or similar countries immediately abandon coal is both unjust and impractical.
A phased approach — gradually increasing renewables while using fossil fuels as a bridge — is more realistic.
Global climate negotiations, such as the annual UN Climate Change Conferences (COPs), reveal just how politicised the fossil fuel debate is.
Developing countries often call for financial support, technology transfer and more time to transition.
Developed countries, while acknowledging these needs, are often reluctant to commit the trillions of dollars required.
At previous conferences, the question of a “just energy transition” dominated discussions.
The creation of a Loss and Damage Fund was hailed as progress, but its financing remains uncertain.
Meanwhile, calls to “phase out” fossil fuels were watered down to “phase down”, reflecting the unwillingness of major oil and gas producers to commit to a rapid exit.
The politics is further complicated by geopolitics.
Russia’s conflict with Ukraine, for example, disrupted global energy supplies, prompting European countries to reopen coal plants and secure new gas contracts in Africa.
This paradox — telling Africa to leave fossils untapped while exploiting them to meet European demand — exposes the double standards at play.
So, the politics of phasing out fossil fuels is not merely about energy; it is about justice, equity and humanity’s collective survival.
For Europe, the urgency is clear in its scorching summers and raging wildfires.
For Africa, the urgency is just as clear in drought-stricken farmlands, failing hydropower and darkened cities.
But the paths to resolution cannot be identical.
Africa should not be rushed into abandoning fossil fuels without the financial, technological and institutional support necessary to build resilient clean energy systems.
The Global North must acknowledge its historical responsibility and provide real support, not empty promises.
For countries like Zimbabwe, pragmatism is key.
Coal and gas may remain essential for now, but they must be used as stepping stones towards a diversified, renewable-powered future. The question is not whether fossil fuels must be phased out — science makes that answer clear.
The real question is how to do so fairly, equitably and sustainably in a world still marked by inequalities.
Until that question is answered, the politics of phasing out fossil fuels will remain the defining contest of our age.
Cliff Chiduku is a communications, public policy and governance expert with interests in climate change and environmental issues. He writes in his personal capacity. Feedback: [email protected] or Call/WhatsApp +263775716517.
