the African Uptimist

Nicholas Kristof’s take on Bono, Foreign Aid and Skeptics

Nickolas Kristof offers one of the best responses yet to skeptics of foreign aid who believe that conventional aid always leaves African countries worse off.  He acknowledges that aid is sometimes oversold, and that aid can be made more effective.  But overall, he believes that carefully targeted aid can good; not bad or ugly.  He launches his persuasive argument with a moving personal experience:

Just to place this issue in context, consider a family I visited in a malarial jungle in Cambodia. The mother had just died of malaria, so the grandmother was left looking after five children — but she had only one mosquito net that could accommodate three children. So every night the grandmother had to decide which three children to put under the bed net and which to expose to malaria.  I left the grandmother money to buy another net…

Extrapolating this experience to the global level, he uses the successful eradication of smallpox to demonstrate how both the recipients and the providers of foreign aid might benefit:

The U.S. invested $32 million over 10 years in the global battle against smallpox. That sum is recouped every two months, simply because Americans no longer need to get vaccinated against smallpox. So that investment has yielded a 46 percent annual return since smallpox was eradicated.  In addition, an estimated 1.5 million people used to die annually of smallpox. So eradication has saved around 45 million lives over the last three decades.  Smallpox was a great success but not a fluke. Among other historical foreign aid successes are immunizations, oral rehydration therapy and the green revolution…More broadly, when we pay a few hundred dollars for fistula surgery so that a teenage girl no longer will leak urine or feces for the rest of her life, that operation may not stimulate economic growth. But no one who sees such a girl's happiness after surgery can doubt that such aid is effective, for it truly saves a human being.

Nicholas concludes by identifying the basic requirements for making aid better, such as targeting those sectors where the development value of every dollar of aid is maximized; sectors like health and education where aid spending has a good record. "Some interventions, like school feedings run by the World Food Program, address both areas: For just 10 cents a day, a child gets a lunch that reduces malnutrition and improves attendance."  Other critical areas where foreign aid can bring more benefits than costs include "nurturing manufacturing and business development, so that countries can grow on their own." I totally agree with this, and with Nicholas' concluding shot: "…getting foreign aid right is harder than it looks — but also remember that 4,110 people didn't die today from smallpox. Aid can be cause for celebration, not embarrassment."  I think that Nicholas' argument offers a common ground on which Bono and the skeptics of foreign aid can stand and work together to make it smart.

The “Food versus Fuel” debate is (almost) over: what next for African energy strategy?

Citing researchers working for IEA Bioenergy, Biopact reports that "Africa could produce more than 400 Exajoules of exportable and sustainably produced biofuels by 2050, without impacting the food, fuel and fiber needs of its rapidly growing populations. This is roughly the amount of energy currently used by the entire world from all sources (oil, gas, nuclear, renewables)." In other words, we can—technically at least--meet all our energy needs from biofuels, and even export surpluses, without suffering the catastrophic food shortages prophesied by some opponents of biofuels; we can have our food and burn it. Good. But I would caution against drawing the tempting conclusion from this report that Africa can pursue biofuels as the main (if not the only) solution to its energy problems. History and common-sense show that such 'silver bullet' strategies are inherently insecure. What if—touch wood—after becoming totally reliant on biofuels, the feedstocks that supply Africa's biofuel refineries of the future are either wiped out or seriously compromised by some devastating disease? It would be tantamount to jumping from the proverbial frying pan of expensive fossil fuels into the fire of biofuel insecurity. In my opinion, Africa's energy experts, governments and international agencies must see biofuels for the region as part of a least-cost mix of alternative energy sources, rather than another 'one best way' to eliminate energy poverty. I would celebrate the end of the food versus biofuels debate only if it does not give rise to a new tyranny of biofuels taking over from the authoritarian global fossil energy regime, with its own version of the energy insecurities and scarcities under which oil-importing countries currently suffer.

Catching and bringing wind-power down to earth

Update: I have added links to additional information related to this post. The long-held dream of converting wind energy at high altitude into usable electricity on the ground is about to be realized. New Scientist's Phil McKenna writes about "flying windmills" capable of tapping jet stream wind currents to generate enormous amounts of reliable, renewable energy. Of the three technologies covered by Phil, the Air Rotor System developed by Magenn Power seems to be the one to watch for potential applications in Africa. An attractive feature of this technology is the ability to capture the energy available in the 600 to 1000-foot low level and nocturnal jet streams that exist almost everywhere. Such innovations should be of interest to any serious advocate of energy access for sustainable development in Africa and other developing regions. Why? Because expanding our energy options—rather than continuing to rely on one or two conventional approaches—is the key to solving our energy problems today for a better tomorrow. Watch the full length video of the Magenn system, and you will probably agree that bringing wind power down to earth is not as far-fetched or crazy as it might sound.

Delaware university researchers set new record for solar cells

Although dog-tired and jet-lagged from a working visit to New York last week, I was energised just now to read that two scientists at the University of Delaware have just created a new device that can convert 42.8% of the light striking it into electricity.  Given that most solar cells today can barely manage 20% efficiency, this is a pretty big jump, and brings us closer to the day when solar cells will constitute a significant part of building energy systems.  The new record narrowly beats that set last year by Spectrolab.  African energy planners should be watching this space...