This is wishful thinking. Large parts of Africa is yet to become a developing economy. Once that happens, coal consumption is going to increase. Unfortunately, it's the easiest and cheapest way to generate electric power.
The future maybe different, but right now coal use has peaked and is starting to fall. See (for example) actual data [1].
> Once that happens ..
you speculate, you engage in wishful thinking, you ignore actual resource consumption projections gathered globally over decades by major resource companies.
https://www.seforall.org/press-releases/new-research-finds-u...
Your rational long term argument has little sway when key decision makers are bribed and offered a chance to retire to a mansion elsewhere on the planet.
As of today the majority of China's coal activity in Africa is directly related to China's mining activity in Africa to provide power for ectraction, processing and townships.
That mining activity is 'small' in the sense that Chinese mining companies represent ~ 8 percent of Africa’s total output in the sector and are concentrated in just five countries: Guinea, Zambia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
Resource extraction from those regions back to China is currently approx. $13 billion US (for resources that would likely cost 5x that cost if sourced from Canada or Australia)
China is not alone and by no means the greatest extractor; Anglo-American alone accounts for more than double that 8% share.
The problem is that not all parts of the world have access to cheap nat gas
Modelers of all ilks generally avoid reporting the underlying uncertainties in their results. And when they do report them, they are woefully underestimated. Fine in the abstract, but not acceptable when trillions of dollars are at stake. Dollars that can be spent instead on direct low risk, high impact improvements in third world child health (clean air, clean water, infectious diseases, etc.). Maybe choose those that also mitigate climate impacts (as we currently understand them), but directly save the living children/people first.
Keep on improving the models with scientific research, but don’t fool ourselves about the accuracy and completeness of such models for policy analysis. I’m old enough to remember the Club of Rome/Limits to Growth controversies.
When the project’s offshore and gas processing emissions are factored in, the LNG produced from the Barossa field would have a total emissions intensity of 1.4 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of LNG produced.
This makes the Barossa development the most emissions intensive LNG projects in Australia and the world
At this point in time there's a clear understanding of the consequences of the current 11 billion tonne of CO2 equivilant emmissions released annually .. an increase in trapped solar heat energy that directly leads to increased storm intensity, climbing global mean tempretures, and edging closer to positive feedback thresholds which are significantly hard to reverse when crossed.
Without. But on a global scale those externalities aren't priced in. Particularly at the margin.