Nigeria has joined several other African countries in boosting planned use of fossil gas as a “transition fuel” in its updated climate plan, reflecting the continent’s struggles to quickly ramp up renewable energy output.
The West African nation aims to have 17 gigawatts (GW) of gas-fired power capacity in 2035 – nearly double the current level and more than the target for solar and hydro power combined, according to its new nationally determined contribution (NDC) plan.
Announcing the plan at the United Nations on Wednesday, Nigeria’s vice-president Kashim Shettima said gas was a “cleaner fuel”. Specifically, the NDC justifies it as a cleaner alternative to coal in electricity generation and as a replacement for diesel in transport.
Michael Ivenso, energy director at Nigeria’s National Council on Climate Change (NCCC), told Climate Home News that Nigeria has adopted the strategy because the transition to clean energy sources “will not happen overnight [and requires] a just, gradual and practical approach”.
-
Addis summit trumpets African climate solutions, while quietly backing gas
African nations sent a strong message on driving green growth with homegrown resources, but were criticised for their softer stance on fossil fuels -
To meet Africa’s clean energy goals, investors urged to tolerate higher risk
A risk-averse approach is holding back investment in African renewables projects, which need to be well-structured and supported by blended finance and guarantees, energy funders say
Nigeria – Africa’s biggest oil producer – needs “time and money to build out a sufficient installed base of renewable energy sources to support growth and development”, Ivenso added.
With plans to cut emissions by 32% from 2018 levels by 2035, the country requires $337 billion to mitigate and adapt to climate change, the climate plan says, with a fifth of the money expected to come from domestic sources, including carbon markets. The rest will come from international funding, it said in the NDC 3.0 submitted to the UN earlier this week. Shettima said the plan was Nigeria’s “highest ambition level to date”.
“Risky strategy”
According to Nigeria’s plan, greenhouse gas emissions from the natural gas industry will be reduced by phasing out routine gas flaring and reducing leaks.
Nigeria, which is plagued by unreliable and patchy power supplies, has a fossil gas reserve of about 210 trillion cubic feet, which could last for up to 93 years, the government says.
President Bola Tinubu’s administration is actively exploring the fuel’s potential, courting investors and unveiling gas infrastructure across the country. After his inauguration in 2023, Tinubu said his government would seek to add value to the nation’s gas assets, saying “it is all about growing the pie so that Nigerians will benefit”.
But critics say continuing to invest in natural gas could prove counterproductive, and more costly, in the long run – as well as making it harder for African countries to meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement.
“It is unfortunate that the Nigerian government is still planning so much fossil gas in its energy mix,” said Sofia Gonzales-Zuñiga, a senior policy analyst at the global institute Climate Analytics.
This is “a risky strategy that could either lead to stranded assets, or lock it into ongoing fossil fuel emissions, when it could be reaping the benefits of much cheaper – and cleaner – renewable energy”, she added.
Those concerns were echoed by Zainab Aliyu, a research consultant at the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, who said Nigeria’s decision to keep betting on fossil gas was tying it to “a volatile industry at a time when the world is moving away from fossil fuels”.
Asked about the NDC’s proposal to scale up the use of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) for cooking, Rajneesh Bhuee, manager of the “Stop Funding Gas Campaign” at the NGO Recourse, said treating LPG as a “clean solution risks entrenching fossil dependence in households and exposing low-income communities to global price volatility”.
Africa’s “transition fuel”
Nigeria is not the only African country that has added intentions to ramp up natural gas use in the new cycle of UN NDCs.
Angola’s climate plan says it plans to use natural gas systems to progressively replace diesel generators in industry, saying that will drive down emissions significantly.
Similarly, Zimbabwe’s NDC said it will ramp up a new gas-fired power plant until 2036 as “although it is a fossil fuel, natural gas can replace coal and reduce emissions considerably”.
Earlier this month, at the second Africa Climate Summit in Addis Ababa, leaders in the final declaration identified “the role of transitional energy sources” – widely taken to be a reference to fossil gas – “in ensuring a just transition that safeguards the energy security of developing countries”.
-
Ethiopia’s preparedness puts it ahead of Nigeria in bid to host COP32, campaigners say
Ethiopia’s logistics, infrastructure and climate diplomacy make it seem better placed to host the 2027 UN climate talks than its West African rival – for now -
UN experts accuse top oil firms of rights violations over Nigerian asset sales
Divestments were made without paying hefty clean-up bills or compensating communities in the pollution-scarred Niger Delta, UN working group says -
Boom in solar panel imports boosts hopes for clean energy take-off in Africa
Africa’s solar imports from China jumped 60% in the 12 months to June 2025, reaching an all-time high
Also, in January, at the Mission 300 energy summit in Tanzania, African leaders adopted a joint statement, citing gas as one of the energy sources needed to unlock “Africa’s full energy potential”.
Giza Gaspar-Martins, a former Angolan climate negotiator who served as chair of the Least Developed Countries group, said “it’s ok” for countries to use gas as a transition fuel “because it has less of a potential to increase global greenhouse gas emissions” compared with other fossil fuels.
Despite the general discouragement for continued investment in fossil fuel production, oil- and gas-producing countries, in particular, have adopted the same position to use gas as a transition fuel and “this is a reflection of national circumstances. It is what it is,” Gaspar-Martins told Climate Home News.
But climate campaigners say continuing to rely on fossil fuels, including gas, could hamper – not help – the continent’s development.
Aliyu urged policymakers to concentrate on renewables and green hydrogen, “rather than investing in a fuel source that is most likely to repeat the oil curse”.
The post Nigeria gives fossil gas a bigger role as “transition fuel” in climate plan appeared first on Climate Home News.
Nigeria gives fossil gas a bigger role as “transition fuel” in climate plan
Climate Change
‘This is a fossil fuel crisis’, Greenpeace tells Senate gas tax Inquiry, citing homegrown renewables as path to energy security
CANBERRA, Tuesday 21 April 2026 — Greenpeace Australia Pacific has slammed gas corporation war profiteering and environmental damage in a scathing Senate hearing today as part of the Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources, urging fair taxation of gas corporations and the transition to secure, homegrown renewable energy to protect Australian households and the economy from future energy shocks.
Speaking at the hearing, Greenpeace said the US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has laid bare the fundamental flaws of an energy system built on fossil fuel extraction, geopolitical power plays and corporate greed, and will be a defining moment for how the world thinks about energy security.
Greenpeace’s submission and full opening remarks can be found here.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“This is not an energy crisis, it’s a fossil fuel crisis. The crisis we’re all facing lays bare the dangers of fossil fuel dependence, for our energy security, our communities, and for global peace and stability.
“Gas corporations like Woodside, Santos, Shell and Chevron — the same companies whose CEOs refused to front this Inquiry — are making obscene war profits, using the illegal war on Iran to price gouge, profiteer and push for more gas we don’t need — while people and our environment pay the price.
“Australians are getting smashed by soaring bills and the impacts of climate disasters — gas corporations should be paying their fair share to help this country, instead of sending billions offshore, tax-free.
“But we’re at a turning point — while gas corporations cynically push to open up more of our oceans and land to drilling for fossil fuels, our allies like the UK are doubling down on renewables in response to the fossil fuel crisis. Our trading partners in Asia are making the same reassessment of fossil fuels.
“Which is why the hearing today is crucial: an effective and well-designed tax on the gas industry’s obscene war time profits is a chance to channel funds to people and communities, fast-track the rollout of clean, secure homegrown wind and solar energy, while holding polluters accountable.
“Our dependence on fossil fuels leave us overexposed to the whims of tyrants like Trump — it’s in Australia’s national interest to end the fossil fuel chokehold for good and usher in the era of clean energy security.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
HOW WOODSIDE’S BROWSE GAS PROPOSAL THREATENS SCOTT REEF’S GREEN TURTLES AND PYGMY BLUE WHALES
Woodside’s Browse to NWS gas project is under assessment by the WA and Federal Governments right now. This is a project that involved drilling up to 50 gas wells around Scott Reef off the coast of WA. Gas would be extracted directly underneath Scott Reef and Sandy Islet and pumped through a 900-kilometre subsea pipeline to the NWS gas processing facility.
Woodside’s Browse gas project’s impact on Scott Reef’s marine habitats?
Scott Reef is one of Australia’s most ecologically significant marine environments, where green turtles breed, pygmy blue whales feed, and an array of at-risk species, including sharks, dolphins, whale sharks, rays, sawfish and sea snakes thrive. It is home to many threatened species, including some found nowhere else on Earth or in genetically isolated groups, magnifying its importance from a conservation perspective.
This delicate reef’s ecosystem faces multiple threats if Woodside’s Proposed Project goes ahead, including seismic blasting, gas flaring, noise pollution, artificial lighting, pipe laying and fast-moving vessels. The reef also faces the risk of a gas well blowout, which could have catastrophic and irreversible consequences for the region’s reefs and marine parks.
Woodside’s woeful marine impacts management plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles and endangered pygmy blue whales if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodsides management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Their assessment found that Woodsides management plans for these species misrepresents or does not assess the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s pygmy blue whales and green turtles. They’ve also surmised that if the project goes ahead the impacts contradict the Australian government’s own recovery plan for turtles and Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for Blue Whales.
The State and Federal Governments now have the opportunity to define their legacies on nature protection and save Scott Reef from Woodside’s dirty gas.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia with Dr Olaf Meynecke of Griffith University.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital feeding, foraging and resting habitat for pygmy blue whales.
Pygmy blue whales feed, forage and rest in the Scott Reef region every year. Scott Reef is recognised as a Biologically Important Area for the pygmy blue whale and is an important stop-over on their annual migration.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
- Woodside’s management plan claims of “no credible threat of significant impacts” are not supported by scientific evidence.
- The management plan relies on outdated whale population information.
- Woodside has claimed it is unclear whether Scott Reef is a foraging habitat for pygmy blue whales, despite the presence of pygmy blue whales and significant concentrations of krill being documented in the area.
- The PBWMP ignores the impacts of industrial noise on whale-to-whale communication. This is especially concerning as mother-calf pairs migrate through the Scott Reef Biologically Important Area shortly after calves are born. Mother-calf pairs rely on continuous, uninterrupted communications to maintain their connection.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital nesting ground for unique green turtles.
The green turtles that nest at Scott Reef’s low-lying Sandy Islet sand cay and nearby Browse Island are genetically unique and are classified as ‘Extremely Vulnerable’ in Australia’s Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
- The Browse project would operate within 20 kilometres of nesting habitat that’s critical to the survival of Scott Reef’s genetically unique and vulnerable green turtle population.
- Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan (TMP) misrepresents the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s green turtles.
- Claims in Woodside’s TMP about Scott Reef’s green turtle population size, nesting success and hatchling numbers are not backed by scientific evidence.
- The TMP proposes gathering updated data after the Browse project is approved.
- Woodside’s TMP proposes adding sand sourced elsewhere to Sandy Islet to counter subsidence and erosion, but fails to properly assess the associated risks.
To save Scott Reef and protect our oceans and animals, the State and Federal Governments must reject Browse.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodside’s management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits