{"id":334181,"date":"2024-06-22T11:25:21","date_gmt":"2024-06-22T09:25:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=334181"},"modified":"2024-06-22T11:25:24","modified_gmt":"2024-06-22T09:25:24","slug":"wrong-bbc-the-popular-kenyan-farmer-is-right-there-is-no-climate-emergency-africa-does-need-fossil-fuels","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=334181","title":{"rendered":"Wrong, BBC, the Popular Kenyan Farmer Is Right, There Is No Climate Emergency, Africa Does Need Fossil Fuels"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Screenshot from X of a photo posted by Machogu: https:\/\/x.com\/JusperMachogu\/status\/1800013619838546241<\/a><\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From ClimateRealism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Linnea Lueken<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The BBC recently published a hit piece posing as an article attacking a Kenyan farmer who has developed a modest following on X, for his skeptical view of climate alarm claims, and his experienced based understanding that Africans need and deserve to develop fossil fuels. The farmer, Jusper Machogu, is right. In reality, it is the BBC\u2019s \u201cclimate change misinformation\u201d reporter who is misleading readers. Not only is the target of the hit piece correct that fossil fuels would be good for Africa, but the BBC reporter\u2019s assertion that Africa is uniquely battered by climate change is false.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The BBC\u2019s Marco Silva wrote the article, \u201cHow a Kenyan farmer became a champion of climate change denial<\/a>,\u201d covering the social media activity on X of a young Kenyan farmer and agricultural engineer, Jusper Machogu, who strongly supports and frequently posts that apocalyptic climate change claims are false and about fossil fuel development for Africa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Machogu\u2019s post history<\/a> mostly involves him advocating for the mechanization and modernization of farming in Africa, enthusiastically praising synthetic fertilizers, tractors, and other production-boosting technologies that are made possible by fossil fuels and their derivatives. He has extensive knowledge about agriculture, including why \u201cgreen\u201d methods of farming and fertilizer production are nowhere near as effective as the processes involving fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact that African agriculture has benefitted from the use of fossil fuels has been covered at Climate Realism<\/em><\/a> extensively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Silva warns ominously that Machogu is a \u201cflagbearer for fossil fuels in Africa, but there is more to his campaign than meets the eye,\u201d accusing him of being motivated exclusively by financial gain to post \u201cdebunked theories about climate change[.]\u201d Silva\u2019s evidence of this is that Machogu got a whopping $9,000 over the course of two years in donations, \u201csome of which came from individuals in Western countries linked to fossil-fuel interests.\u201d This is just scummy on the part of Silva, an ad hominem attack on Machogu\u2019s character and possible motivations rather than the content of his posts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Silva doesn\u2019t attempt to engage with Machogu\u2019s claims that \u201cthere is no climate crisis,\u201d except to cite specific experts who disagree. Machogu has written that his research has led him to believe that climate change is mostly natural, posting on X \u201c\u201cClimate change is mostly natural. A warmer climate is good for life,\u201d to which Silva blithely responds that Machogu, \u201cwrongly claimed in a tweet posted in February, along with the hashtag #ClimateScam (which he has used hundreds of times).\u201d Silva cites no evidence for his claim that Machogu\u2019s claims about climate change being natural and a warmer world being good for life are wrong \u2014 where\u2019s his proof? That, of course, would have been to engage in facts rather than deploying smarmy rhetoric.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem for Silva is, as Climate Realism<\/em> has shown in hundreds of articles, there is no evidence whatsoever that climate change is making the world worse for humanity. In fact, people are living longer, more food is being produced<\/a>, the earth is greening<\/a>, and fewer people are dying<\/a> from extreme weather and non-optimum temperatures than ever in history. In short, data strongly suggests that it is the poor farmer rather than the educated journalist who is right about climate change, a warmer climate is good for life. Once again, rather than disputing Mochogu\u2019s claims with data, Silva then parrots a talking point that Africa is particularly vulnerable to climate change and its alleged effects \u201cincluding more intense and frequent heatwaves, prolonged droughts, and devastating floods.\u201d He provides no proof for these claims, either, because there is none.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Computer model projections may predict that Africa might someday suffer ill effects from climate change, and propagandist journalists may promote the idea every time some part of the continent is suffering from extreme weather, but real world data debunk such claims. The bulk of evidence show that Africa is not suffering from worse or more prolonged heatwaves<\/a>, drought<\/a>, or flooding<\/a>, as covered in several posts by Climate Realism<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Machogu is also correct that greater fossil fuel development and use would benefit poor African nations, so long as they get to reap the benefits of having the products and energy security that fossil fuels provide, instead of having African fossil fuels<\/a> exploited by corrupt governments or shipped off to energy-hungry Western nations. Silva attempts to head off this obvious point by quoting a Ugandan climate activist, writing that \u201cfossil fuel exploration has not always been a synonym for growth and development in Africa.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But this does not address the point at all. Just because some development has been exploitative doesn\u2019t mean that Machogu is wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trying to stop Africans from using cheap, plentiful energy from fossil fuels makes it more difficult, if not impossible, to adapt to natural weather disasters. Similarly, as Machogu, who actually lives in a region where so-called \u201csustainable\u201d farming practices dominate, points out<\/a>, organic and non-mechanized farming are all fun and games when your life does not depend on it, but give lower yields and increase the threat of famine, as it did in Sri Lanka.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modern synthetic fertilizers and fossil-fuel powered equipment have already helped African nations\u2019 food production increase over time, reducing hunger and malnutrition, regardless of extreme weather events, as discussed here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a>. For a specific example, see African cereal yield data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization<\/a> since just the 1990s. (See figure below)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the same period which has seen the most climate alarmism amid modest warming:<\/p>\n\n\n\n