When the pope, the world’s leading moral authority, issues an encyclical addressing the looming dangers of climate change and carbon emissions, it’s time for grown-ups in the room to take serious note.

The Laudato Si encyclical’s scope is broad, perhaps the hardest hitting single climate document by a non-activist leader yet. It addresses an array of climate issues in a moral light: Development aid and energy access, carbon trading, historical responsibility, the slow pace of political action and the contribution of rampant consumerism to environmental degradation. It does not mince words about fossil fuels:

“We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels — especially coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas — needs to be progressively replaced without delay.”

How ironic that, as the Holy See rings in the end of the fossil fuel era, East African countries are poised to begin it. It is, of course, about economic growth and money.

So, though the regions’ leaders are used to such harassment from environmentalists, it is another thing altogether to hear sermons from the pulpit about putting the brakes on fossil fuel development. Especially when church leaders speak of the “moral duty” to change environmentally incorrect behaviour.

Until recently sub-Sahara Africa has been given a “pass” when it comes to carbon emissions. In international dialogues, the “politically correct” position has been that, first, developing countries did not cause this mess; second, they need to focus on building out energy access to their populations; and third, their poor are most at risk from the ravages of climate change. So, as the “victim,” Africa was given free rein to grow carbon use.

Today, as global CO2 concentrations spiral rapidly towards levels beyond internationally agreed budgets, the thinking is changing. Decreasing costs of renewable energy are changing rhetoric: The new talk is about leapfrogging carbon-intensive infrastructure and moving directly to green economies.

On the ground, though, energy — like roads — has much to do with economic development and security. Being “green” is only one of the calculations factored in by planners.

East Africa’s growing economies need low-cost electricity to move forward. Economic planners want to add perhaps 30,000MW of power to the regions’ grids in the next 20 years to fuel growth. And, although there is a lot of green energy in the ambitious expansion plans, there are also a lot of coal, oil-fired power and natural gas.

Today, as South Africa runs on it and Mozambique exploits massive fields, East Africa is investing in coal-fired power plants for large portions of its electricity budget.

Kenya and Uganda are looking to build refineries and pipe petroleum from underground reserves to the industrial developments at the Coast. Indian Ocean gas wells are being drilled from Beira to Lamu.

This appetite to extract carbon is driven by entrenched local and international business entities with little regard for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), global carbon budgets and papal decrees. One wonders if there is a danger of the region going down the wrong energy path.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the leader of a local NGO scrutinising Uganda’s petroleum sector was recently called in by national security. His group was getting some bureaucratic backs up.

In government eyes, energy is a security concern and no NGO has the right to get in the way.  “Who is funding you?” they wanted to know. Given the way environmentalists slowed down the Bujagali dam, the last thing Uganda wants is international interference with its petroleum industry. Kenya and Tanzania have similar sovereign sentiments.

Regional governments are right be worried. First, because there is a growing international consensus about the need for real action to reduce global emissions.

With the daily litany of global drought, hurricane, heat wave and flooding, scientists are no longer needed to warn us about climate change.

Even the Pope knows we are over 400 ppm and headed towards a 4°C temperature rise. Given the science, the unfolding weather events, and signs of life and leadership from Obama and China, we may have an enforceable agreement at the Paris COP meeting this November.

Any such agreement will make extractive fossil fuel industries uncomfortable. The call from environmentalists is quite clear: Keep reserves in the ground. Using apartheid-era tactics, campaigners are urging groups to divest from fossil fuel and to put their money in green energy.

As in anti-apartheid days, there is a groundswell of support. Groups that range from Stanford University to Rockefeller Foundation, from Norwegian trust funds to Cambridge University, are divesting from petroleum.

It is this second implication that should worry regional leaders and investors. The world — and, yes, international capital — is slowly turning away from carbon fuels.
With this change comes a fall in the value of fossil fuel assets.

China’s appetite for coal has peaked, and, simultaneously the value of top coal companies in the US is plummeting. Because of nervous investors, Australia is having trouble getting a new coal export harbour funded.

Closer to home, oil companies are cutting costs and hedging — and petroleum developments are behind schedule. Think this isn’t related to the “Keep It in the Ground Campaign” and investor apprehension? Think again. If international agreements happen, there will be stranded fossil fuel assets.

The good news is that, as fossil fuel appetites peak, investment is shifting. In most parts of the world, wind and solar are booming. In 2014, $270 billion was invested in renewables and much more green finance is coming.

Some 657 GW of global renewables was installed, not including hydro. Even in East Africa, renewables are moving forward. Kenya is a global geothermal leader, farms are popping up all over the Horn of Africa to harness its ample wind and Ethiopia is completing the largest African hydropower rollout ever.

Off-grid in rural areas, solar power lights up millions of households. Though slower in Africa than elsewhere, the shift is occurring. We are only seeing the beginning of what is possible.

During his interview with security chiefs, the Ugandan NGO leader said he had no quarrel with them. He agreed, energy is indeed a security issue. In fact, he told them, the potential carbon emissions and pollution from poorly executed large-scale fossil fuel developments are the worlds’ primary security issue. 

He likened the fossil fuel industry to a huge mango tree standing over our global household. “You see,” he said, “this tree is growing so big that it risks collapsing atop the house.”

And he had some sound advice: “If we cannot remove the tree because we need the mangoes, does it not makes sense to prune a few limbs before the tree falls on top of the house?” And, perhaps, to plant 1,000 small trees — distributed energy sources — in many regions rather than relying on just one tree?

Mark Hankins is a consultant and renewable energy engineer based in Nairobi.