Ethiopia’s ambitious renewable energy projects show projects like EACOP are out of sync with the future Africa is building at ACS2
Addis Ababa looked ready to show off at the just concluded Africa Climate Summit (ACS-2). In just a little over a year, the city was looking greener, cleaner, with well designed and well thought out public roads with walkways and bicycle lanes. You could see electric vehicles gliding quietly along the wider streets. It was clear the city wanted to make a statement, one that Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed echoed to his fellow African leaders: “If we make the right choices now, Africa can be the first continent to industrialize without destroying its ecosystems.”
Last year, Ethiopia became the first country to ban imports of combustion engine vehicles, a decision driven by economic necessity rather than solely environmental policy. This move highlights a financial reality facing many African nations: fossil fuels are a debt trap. While numerous African governments spend billions on fuel imports—depleting foreign exchange reserves and increasing national debt—Ethiopia's leadership recognized this unsustainable path.
The country was spending over $4.5 billion a year on fuel imports. Now, with the completion of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), which is set to double electricity output, Ethiopia is exploring an economy beyond fossil fuels. Critics rightly point out challenges with the grid's capacity to handle all the dam's output, but it is encouraging to see Ethiopia consider alternatives to a fossil fuel-dependent economy.
CSOs, community leaders and climate activists at the African Peoples’ Assembly at the 2nd Africa Climate Summit. Click here to read the declaration from this event
This bold thinking aligns with demands from communities and civil society leaders. At the African Peoples’ Assembly—a space where African voices defined what justice, sovereignty, and resilience must mean for our continent—Joab Okanda from the Global Gas and Oil Network (GGON) captured it perfectly when he stated that our focus was not on cutting emissions because Africa has no emissions to cut, but rather on developing in a way that avoids emissions. That’s why adaptation is key for the continent. In short, Africa doesn’t need to choose between development and climate action. What Ethiopia is doing, and what CSOs and community leaders are communicating to the world, is that a future without fossil fuels is not only possible but the preferred African-led path.
ACS2 called for climate investment and African-led solutions, echoing sentiments from ACS1 about rethinking the financial architecture. Kenyan President William Ruto, who hosted ACS1, continued his message from Nairobi regarding debt distress and the need to move away from loan-based financing to concessional loans and grants. He reiterated that Africa will not play the victim but will seek meaningful partnerships.
Unlike ACS1, where he framed this narrative and invited the world to invest in the continent's abundant renewable energy sector, including the controversial carbon markets, ACS2 took a step further by mobilizing African financial institutions that have committed USD 100 billion to support the Africa Green Industrialization Initiative. This pledge by African financial institutions comes against the backdrop of complaints from African states and CSOs about the failure of developed nations to honor their COP15 commitments to mobilize USD 100 billion annually in climate finance for developing countries.
Our partners Meryne Warah, Global Organising Director of Green Faith (middle), and Omar Elmawi, Convener of the Africa Movement of Movements (left), address a panel at ACS2
However, CSOs expressed cautious optimism, noting issues they found problematic at ACS2. Their biggest concern was the contradiction of banks pledging USD 100 billion for the green initiative while also funding fossil fuel projects in Africa. For instance, South Africa’s Standard Bank, a major funder of the controversial East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), is among those mobilizing the fund.
This situation creates opportunities for greenwashing—a tactic where organizations publicly commit to green causes while funding environmentally harmful projects for short-term profits. By using their involvement in the green initiative to project a positive image, these banks risk misleading the public about their actual engagement in climate change mitigation while maintaining Africa's fossil fuel dependency.
CSOs also expressed deep concerns about carbon markets, reiterating worries raised at ACS1 that foreign interests might hijack the summit. While they agree that climate funding cannot continue as expensive loans compounding the climate burden, they completely reject carbon markets as a financial option. These markets do not address the root cause of the crisis and instead offer permits for pollution while shifting the burden of mitigation onto Africans who have contributed least to the crisis. It’s, therefore, a false solution they urged the African heads of state to abandon.
In conclusion, ACS2 marked a significant step for Africa, advancing the continent's climate conversation from rhetoric to action. While the summit showed progress, particularly in commitment to African-led solutions, it also revealed persistent issues like fossil fuel finance and greenwashing.
The ACS2 declaration is out, but the conversation continues. As a movement, we will analyze this declaration with our partners and experts to ensure Africa's path to prosperity avoids the pitfalls of fossil fuel dependence. Our work continues as we build a unified vision for a sustainable, renewable future ahead of COP30. Follow us on X (Twitter), Facebook, and Instagram, and join the conversation.
