There is considerable dispute as to whether anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) is to blame for any observed global warming or whether, in fact, it plays any role at all.

Many members of the public do not realise that the dispute exists because the popular media tends to imply that the facts of the matter are settled and that CO2 produced by mankind is not only to blame, but is also solely to blame. Respected and competent scientists around the world do not unanimously agree with this position, contrary to what the press may say.

Also in dispute is whether any global warming is actually bad at all. History clearly shows that there were previous warm periods, such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warming, which were periods of health, welfare and prosperity.

These warm periods definitely occurred globally without any anthropogenic CO2 playing a role.
What is not in dispute is that there has been a general warming of about 0.6 ºC over the twentieth century. However, this warming did not occur on a smooth curve, whereas the CO2 concentration increase did. This mismatch should cause any thinking person to ponder if the one really caused the other.

About half of the warming occurred before 1945. After the Second World War, as industry accelerated postwar output, it is interesting to note that warming fell off and a cooling period followed during the 1960s and 1970s. After around 1975, an upward trend in tempe- rature started again.

Interestingly, these temperature varia- tions correlate well with the varying magnetic activity of the sun, but not at all well with the rising CO2 concentration. This fact alone is cause for thinking deeply. The sun’s activity can also be correlated with the amount of cloud cover on the earth. That is important.

It is most important that these issues of the sun’s magnetic field and the CO2 influence on the atmosphere be scientifically and honestly investigated.

We all want to live in a clean and healthy world. We all want a good life for ourselves and our children.
So, for us living here in Africa, what perspec- tive must we contemplate? Why should some African children have to do their school homework by candlelight when children in Europe and north America use electric light? African families are entitled to look forward to a modern future for themselves and their descendants. What this implies is that Africa is going to use much more electricity than is being used now.
Some African countries are only 5% or 10% electrified. For meaningful economic and social development, they must rapidly double their electricity use, and then double it again, and again.

Electricity use is set to rise rapidly in Africa. To try to oppose this reality is not only immoral, but also totally impractical. The question, then, is: How will this electricity be produced?

Some African countries are endowed with fossil fuels, but most are not. Those countries that do have fossil fuels will use them one way or another. Those that do not will have to find another answer. They will have to find an answer that is realistic and works. Such an answer is compact nuclear reactors that generate 200 MW or less. Wind and solar are not the answer. Wind and solar have their place in the African context but it is not in the large-scale production of baseload electricity.

It is one thing to be a European country and to have wind energy making up, say, 10% of the national electricity mix – it is a totally different story to expect African countries to plan for wind and solar to make up most of the countries’ electricity production. These sources are just too variable and intermittent to be a country’s prime source of supply.

Also, Africa is very large, and, in many African countries, there are great distances between towns and cities and little development in the regions between the towns and cities. One cannot design an electricity supply system based on wind where major power lines have to be constructed to cover distances of hundreds of kilometres between where the wind is and where the electricity is needed. African countries have to be extremely practical and have to have the welfare of their populations as their main priority.

If it turns out that anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of observed global warming, then it would have been very irresponsible and immoral for anybody to have held a position that prevents African countries from exploiting fossil fuels.

Of course, all fossil fuel development should be as efficient and as clean as modern technology allows for.
In many African countries, even the building of modern fossil fuel power stations will reduce the amount of CO2 and other gases and par- ticulates emitted into the atmosphere.

Why this apparent contradiction? Simple: there are millions of people who now cook and heat their homes using wood or dung fires because they have no electricity. These wood and dung fires are very polluting and unhealthy. If they were replaced by electrical stoves and heaters, even using electricity produced by a modern fossil fuel electricity plant, the net effect on atmospheric emissions should be very positive.

We need to be very realistic and honest in debating the progression of all of mankind on this valuable planet of ours.