Simply by following the lead of U.S. President Donald J. Trump, national leaders of developing countries can clear away obstacles to rational energy policy that have been erected by climate activists.
On April 8, President Trump signed an executive order titled "Protecting American Energy from State Overreach," a bold step to counter what he described as ideologically driven assaults on his nation’s energy development. The order declares that “American energy dominance is threatened when state and local governments seek to regulate energy beyond their constitutional or statutory authorities.”
The declaration cites examples of states imposing “significant barriers to interstate and international trade” and “arbitrary or excessive fines through retroactive penalties” on energy producers – actions that undermine not just economic vitality but the very principles of federalism.
More than a domestic policy tweak, President Trump’s announcement can be taken as a clarion call to nations worldwide to rein in obstructionism – masquerading as concern for the environment – that cripples energy projects, impedes economic development and threatens national security.
Through executive orders limiting U.S. funding international climate initiatives, the president has eased disruptive foreign interference in domestic energy policies. However, developing nations, especially those in the Global South, must now take advantage of their newfound freedom to set energy policy.
In the developing world, the fingerprints of climate activism are evident in stalled or abandoned fossil fuel projects – each a lost opportunity for growth. Grassroots movements, often bankrolled by foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and abetted by sympathetic local governments, have stalled critical projects across continents. These efforts, while claiming to save the planet, ignore the human toll of energy poverty: children studying by candlelight, hospitals without power, and economies stunted by unreliable grids.
First, the developing nations should investigate the funding and motives behind climate activism. Who bankrolls these NGOs? Are their campaigns aligned with national interests, or do they serve foreign agendas?
Amsterdam-headquartered Greenpeace International, for example, has undertaken protests of power generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors and of coal and aluminum mining across India. Readers must understand that half of India suffers with unreliable electricity supplies that fail regularly at times of peak demand. In one recent week, this Indian writer experienced 2-3 electricity blackouts every day.
A Greenpeace leadership that enjoys the comfort of an industrial economy built with the energy of fossil fuels is now asking poor people in the Third World to forgo energy abundance and rely instead on useless wind turbines and solar panels. To do so is to accept generational poverty for the sake of addressing a fabricated climate emergency with measures that can have no positive effect on the weather in any case.
Africa, home to over 600 million people without access to electricity, stands at the frontline of the battle against energy deprivation. Nigeria, Angola, and Mozambique have vast natural gas reserves, yet face continual opposition from international “green” lobbies.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, one of the world’s poorest countries, the non-profit 350Africa.org coordinated demonstrations against oil and gas exploration, mobilizing hundreds of groups. In Uganda and Tanzania, the $3.5 billion East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) – a lifeline for regional energy integration – has faced relentless opposition from groups like StopEACOP, a coalition bankrolled by various nonprofits.
Second, governments must assert authority over energy policy, curbing local states or municipalities that align with crusades against fossil fuels. Many cities across the developing world have designated themselves as Net-Zero entities under an initiative of the World Economic Forum.
It is exasperating to see cities still struggling to provide basic services for the health and safety of their citizens are willing to prioritize foolish opposition to rational energy development. It is even more weird that municipal leaders would align with foreign organizations like the World Economic Forum and United Nations in opposition to their own national interests.
Third, legal mechanisms should be used to deter frivolous lawsuits and protests. African nations rich in energy resources could adopt statutes penalizing activism that delays critical infrastructure without evidence of harm, mirroring the U.S. Attorney General’s mandate to challenge unconstitutional state and local laws. Such measures would shift the burden onto activists to justify their claims, rather than paralyzing projects by default.
Energy security is national security, and no ideology should usurp that. From Nigeria’s oil fields to India’s coal mines, national leaders must dismantle the puppet masters – and puppets – behind efforts to stymie sensible energy use and clear a path for energy abundance and eradication of poverty.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member