Business has never been as brisk for Nigerian solar panel retailer Samuel Okechukwu and his team of installation technicians, who are struggling to keep up with orders since the Iran war caused local fuel prices to double.

“There’s too much work, I’m even having to outsource some services to keep up with the work rate,” Okechukwu told Climate Home News, as he installed solar panels on the roof of an apartment building in the southern city of Port Harcourt.

Before the war, he had installations once or twice a week, but is now busy almost every day.

Okechukwu’s surge in orders in recent weeks suggests that more Nigerians are buying solar systems due to soaring fuel prices caused by the conflict in the Middle East, which has effectively blocked the Strait of Hormuz through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas previously flowed.

Feb 4, 2026 Energy

Africa records fastest-ever solar growth, as installations jump in 2025

Africa’s solar power installations have increased sharply, driven by utility-scale projects and privately financed rooftop and commercial systemsRead moreAug 27, 2025 Energy

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 highRead moreMar 26, 2026 Justice

Ugandan farmers use British court to try to stop East Africa oil pipeline

The farmers and their lawyers will argue that a UK-based entity linked to the East African Crude Oil Pipeline has breached Ugandan law and construction should haltRead more

Plagued by frequent failures on Nigeria’s national grid, many homes and businesses buy diesel and petrol to supply generators to keep the lights on and equipment operating.

Even before the latest fuel price shock, solar installations had been increasing in Nigeria in recent years as an alternative to generators among those able to afford the initial outlay.

It costs about 600,000 naira ($450) to buy just one inverter battery and two 300-watt solar panels to charge it – roughly 10 times the minimum monthly wage – and eyebrows were raised when the government announced last year that the presidential villa was being kitted out with a $6 million solar mini-grid.

Power plants hit by gas shortages

Nigeria’s erratic power supplies have become even more unreliable in recent weeks as gas shortages constrain already fragile power generation. Most of Nigeria’s electricity supply comes from gas-fired plants.

A delivery of solar panels to Onuchukwu’s shop in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, March 25, 2026. (Photo: Vivian Chime)

A delivery of solar panels to Onuchukwu’s shop in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, March 25, 2026. (Photo: Vivian Chime)

Last month, the Nigerian Independent System Operator said several of the oil- and gas-producing nation’s thermal power plants were being affected by “persistent gas supply constraints” that were causing a decline in electricity generation.

While Nigeria has abundant gas reserves, the shortages are largely driven by structural issues, including mounting government debts owed to gas suppliers and pipeline constraints. Power Minister Adebayo Adelabu said last week that gas suppliers are prioritising export markets which have become more attractive and offer better returns over domestic markets.

This week, the Nigerian government increased gas prices for power generation companies, a move likely to deepen cost pressures in the electricity sector already struggling with debt and supply shortages.

At the same time, Okechukwu said rising temperatures in recent years were also increasing demand for an affordable source of electricity to power air conditioners.

Global oil shock makes case for renewables

Installations of solar power in Africa jumped 54% in 2025, according to a report by the Global Solar Council (GSC), marking the fastest annual growth on record.

The continent’s solar power capacity still represents only about 1% of the world’s total, though industry experts say the continent may have significantly more than official data reflects, with many rooftop installations going uncounted.

Precarious power supplies are already a key driver of solar adoption in many African nations, propelling fast growth rates in countries including Nigeria, which was Africa’s second-largest solar installer last year, installing more than 800 MW of capacity, according to the GSC, a nonprofit trade body.

PEG Africa agents prepare to install a solar-powered fridge panel in Lahou-Kpanda, Ivory Coast, February 25, 2021. Photo taken on February 25, 2021. REUTERS / Luc Gnago

PEG Africa agents prepare to install a solar-powered fridge panel in Lahou-Kpanda, Ivory Coast, February 25, 2021. Photo taken on February 25, 2021. REUTERS / Luc Gnago

Surging energy costs due to the Iran war could give further momentum to growth, the GSC’s CEO Sonia Dunlop told Climate Home News.

“It’s clear the people of Nigeria saw the writing on the wall … and have gone all in on rooftop solar as a result,” Dunlop said.

The increase in energy prices since the conflict began have cost consumers and businesses around the world more than $100 billion, according to a March 2026 analysis by 350.org, a non-profit organisation.

It said that would be enough to build sufficient solar capacity to supply about 150 million people in lower-consumption countries, for example in Africa, adding that investing in renewables was the best way to stabilise prices and strengthen energy security.

Anne Jellema, 350.org’s CEO, urged governments meeting in Colombia next month to discuss the transition away from oil and gas to “seize this moment to adopt binding targets to phase out fossil fuels and ramp up investment in a clean, safe energy future”.

Africa records fastest-ever solar growth, as installations jump in 2025

The global energy shock unleashed by the U.S.-Israeli war “definitely supports the case for longer-term mitigation, not being reliant on imported oil”, said Karl Boyce, CEO of ARC Power, a mini-grid developer operating in Africa, adding that securing sufficient investment would be crucial to realising Africa’s renewables potential.

“It’s so reliant on really heavy investment,” Boyce said. “So globally, there should be a focus on seeing how more investment can go into that sector just to give more stability in the longer term.”

Onuchukwu in front of his solar panels retail shop in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, March 25, 2026. (Photo: Vivian Chime)

Onuchukwu in front of his solar panels retail shop in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, March 25, 2026. (Photo: Vivian Chime)

“Forget about buying petrol”

In Port Harcourt, another solar trader, Sunday Onuchukwu, said his business has been “moving faster than before” as people get tired of power cuts and rising fuel costs that make investing in panels seem a better bet.

Located in a solar panels retail market, Onuchukwu’s shop was busy with customers, but the market itself was unusually quiet – without the usual whirr of generators thanks to the solar panels on the roof.

“Most of my customers complain that the fuel issue is one reason why they have decided to go solar. I have clients who transition both their offices and homes at the same time and move away from the bad power supply,” Onuchukwu told Climate Home News.

He said many businesses spend more than 20,000 naira ($15) per day on petrol to power generators.

Green Climate Fund picks locations for five developing country hubs

“With that money, calculated over a one-year period, you can install solar and forget about ever buying petrol,” he said, adding that some lower-cost solar products were now becoming available such as a 50,000-naira ($36) kit that provides enough power to light a single bulb and charge a mobile phone.

Mr Amadi lifts twp wrapped solar panels onto his head at Onuchukwu’s shop in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, March 25, 2026. (Photo: Vivian Chime)

Mr Amadi lifts twp wrapped solar panels onto his head at Onuchukwu’s shop in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, March 25, 2026. (Photo: Vivian Chime)

Lifting two heavy panels onto his head in Onuchukwu’s shop, one customer said ensuring a steady supply of power – after months without mains supplies – was vital for his barber shop and would also help his wife’s small business.

“This is what I am using to run my business and ensure electricity,” the man said, giving his family name as Amadi.

“With these two panels, I can also power my wife’s inverter freezer for her to be selling frozen foods.”

The post Nigerians bet on solar as global oil shock hits wallets and power supplies appeared first on Climate Home News.

---

From Climate Home News via this RSS feed

From Paul Beckwith via this RSS feed

From The Independent News via this RSS feed

From The Independent News via this RSS feed

From The Independent News via this RSS feed

From Yale Climate Connections via this RSS feed

From Paul Beckwith via this RSS feed

From Yale Climate Connections via this RSS feed

From The Independent News via this RSS feed

Cancelled surveys, suppressed publications, hidden data: the Trump administration is continuing to hack and slash its way through the entire enterprise of science within the federal government. Between January 20th to September 30th of this year, there have been 506 attacks on science. (We broadly define attacks on science as actions, statements, or decisions that undermine, co-opt, or ignore science in the federal government.)

If you’re thinking “that seems like a lot”—you’re right. UCS has been tracking attacks on science for over two decades. And although we’ve recently updated our methodology, we did so to capture this increased rate of attacks. This is certainly more, and more intense, than what we’ve ever seen before, even by comparison to the unprecedented first term of the Trump administration.

Here’s a snapshot of the attacks on science that we saw during the month of September. (For those who came here to find out more about how they can help protect federal science during this moment, you can skip to the bottom of the page; I’ve included links and resources towards this end.) While it’s not a comprehensive list of every unsettling incident, I hope this summary—as with others I’ve written—serves as an illustration of the dangerous pattern of anti-science actions we’ve seen since Inauguration Day. These attacks have real implications for you and me, for our communities, and for our planet. When political, corporate, and ideological actors interfere in federal science, people get hurt.

Shutting out the facts

September saw multiple instances of political interference in federal scientific studies. As the adage goes, only what gets measured gets managed—and across the Trump administration, political appointees are, in practice, dodging their responsibility to solve problems by undermining the tools and research used to monitor those problems.

Despite Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s claims that he wanted to investigate diet-related and chronic illnesses, the Department of Health and Human Services neglected to publish a federal study showing the harmful effects of drinking alcohol (like its connections to developing cancer).The Department of Agriculture canceled an annual survey it falsely claims had become “politicized” that provided regular data on food insecurity across the country (and put the scientists who conducted it on administrative leave). This marks the first time in 30 years—following two years of rising food insecurity and amid recent funding cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—that the U.S. will be in the dark on food security data collection and analysis. (For more on this very chilling attack on science, read my colleague Karen Perry Stillerman’s recent blog post.)The Bureau of Labor Statistics, recently on the receiving end of the President’s vitriol for releasing an inconvenient jobs report, indefinitely delayed the release of an annual report on income and employment.The Department of Homeland Security canceled its regularly updated Global Trends report that highlighted, based on intelligence analysis, predicted threats to national security for the next four years. In the most recent edition, published four years ago? The global threats of COVID-19 and climate change.

And, of course, the work of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to be a central target of this brutal campaign. Just look at the EPA’s Office of Water to see this pattern in action.

Cutting off the information flow

The EPA ordered some of its scientists to stop publishing their research. Moving forward, research that comes out of the Office of Water at EPA will be subject to additional review by political officials. In practice, what this means is that EPA scientists in this office are no longer allowed to submit their scientific studies to peer-reviewed scientific journals without having a political appointee review them first.

Historically, the EPA’s Office of Water has regulated drinking water, recreational bodies of water (like lakes and oceans), wastewater, and marine habitats. In very simple terms, this office helps keep our water healthy to drink, safe to swim in, and habitable for aquatic animals and plants. We all rely on water every day, so these programs are critical to everyone’s health and safety. The scientific research they sponsor ensures their work is up to date and that they can protect us from dangerous and emerging threats, like lead and PFAS. (More on this in a moment!)

If you’ve been reading my other posts, you’ve heard me speak at length about the dangers of political officials taking control of federal scientific processes. This includes political officials being given authority over preventing political interference in agency research and reviewing federal grant applications, among other things. The directives put on the Office of Water raise the same red flags.

First, enforcing an additional review process of scientific research that EPA scientists would otherwise publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals is, in itself, a problematic development and threatens to undercut the scientific merit and expertise of those who work in the Office of Water.

For context: reputable scientific journals, on their own, employ a stringent peer-review and editorial process to ensure the methodology, analysis, and reasoning behind submitted studies are sound enough to contribute to the collective scientific knowledge on a topic. I should also add that these scientific studies are being developed, finalized, and reviewed by experts in their respective fields of study. In other words, these studies already go through multiple rounds of scientific review before being published in a journal.

The additional level of oversight, though, risks putting loyalty to President Trump and the administration’s priorities over any scientific considerations. To reiterate, this administration has created a list of terms that are banned or require additional scrutiny (like “sustainability,” “diversity,” “pollution,” and “transgender”), and targeted topics inconvenient to its agenda (like the well-established association between fossil fuels and climate change). Political leaders have attempted to gut studies, programs, and funding that have any perceived association to these topics. Appointing political officials to this oversight role is so alarming because the Trump administration has consistently committed anti-science actions and has made policy decisions that wildly conflict with the best available science.

Take, for example, the attacks on PFAS regulation in waterways. Within the Office of Water’s jurisdiction is any scientific inquiry, testing, and monitoring of harmful substances in water, including “forever chemicals,” or PFAS. PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals that are very difficult to break down, both in human/animal bodies and in the environment. They have been shown to have a variety of serious health impacts.

The Trump administration is actively suppressing scientific information and changing policy that regulates PFAS in drinking water. For example, in recent months, EPA has delayed the release of a finalized assessment that summarizes the harmful effects of a certain type of PFAS (PFNA), like liver and reproductive health damage. It also recently requested a federal court to effectively weaken regulations on PFAS, which, if approved, would mean that fewer of these chemicals would be removed from drinking water moving forward.

Placing political officials in charge of reviewing scientific studies before the public and scientific community can see them risks independent science being buried, altered, or otherwise politicized. And when we’re talking about things like the harmful effects of PFAS or other chemicals in waterways, there’s a real chance that this change will hurt people, animals, and our planet.

Staying engaged

All hope is not lost. In the midst of all these attacks on science, there are organizations who are fighting for the protection of federal scientists and their work, groups continuing to advocate for the health and safety of people and the planet, and people, just like you, who want to help. Here are a few ways that you can help us defend federal science:

Currently, in the House of Representatives, there’s a bill (with bipartisan support) called The Scientific Integrity (SI) Act. It would codify protections against political interference into law, making scientific integrity protections universal across all federal agencies that fund, conduct, and oversee scientific work. In other words, it would better prevent political appointees or elected officials from burying, altering, or censoring scientific reports and messaging inconvenient to their agenda. This would include all those scientific agencies I named earlier that were directly attacked by political officials in September. If you think that protecting science from political interference is important, please urge your Congressional Representatives to co-sponsor the SI Act. You can contact your Rep easily using this link.Is there a federal scientist in your life? We’ve compiled a list of resources for them that help them know their rights, protect themselves from attack, and connect them with community. Send them our Resources for Federal Scientists.Stay up to date on any other SI related action using this link. From one science fan to another, there will be more events coming up soon that you can get involved in.Make sure that you’re taking care of yourself too. Have you had any water today? Maybe it’s time for a snack?Sign up for email updates to stay up to date on all of the hard work being done by experts across UCS. There are also often additional ways to help and get involved shared in those emails.

---

From The Equation via this RSS feed

More than 100 countries have cut their dependence on fossil-fuel imports and saved hundreds of billions of dollars by continuing to invest in renewables, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

It says nations such as the UK, Germany and Chile have reduced their need for imported coal and gas by around a third since 2010, mainly by building wind and solar power.

Denmark has cut its reliance on fossil-fuel imports by nearly half over the same period.

Renewable expansion allowed these nations to collectively avoid importing 700m tonnes of coal and 400bn cubic metres of gas in 2023, equivalent to around 10% of global consumption.

In doing so, the fuel-importing countries saved more than $1.3tn between 2010 and 2023 that would otherwise have been spent on fossil fuels from overseas.

Reduced reliance

The IEA’s Renewables 2025 report quantifies the benefits of renewable-energy deployment for electricity systems in fossil fuel-importing nations.

It compares recent trends in renewable expansion to an alternative “low renewable-energy source” scenario, in which this growth did not take place.

In this counterfactual, fuel-importing countries stopped building wind, solar and other non-hydropower renewable-energy projects after 2010.

In reality, the world added around 2,500 gigawatts (GW) of such projects between 2010 and 2023, according to the IEA, more than the combined electricity generating capacity of the EU and US in 2023, from all sources. Roughly 80% of this new renewable capacity was built in nations that rely on coal and gas imports to generate electricity.

The chart below shows how 31 of these countries have substantially cut their dependence on imported fossil fuels over the 13-year period, as a result of expanding their wind, solar and other renewable energy supplies. All of these countries are net importers of coal and gas.

Share of national electricity supplies that depend on imported fossil fuels in 2023, actual (left) and in the IEA’s “low renewable-energy source” scenario (right), in 31 countries that are net importers of coal and gas. Source: IEA.

In total, the IEA identified 107 countries that had reduced their dependence on fossil fuel imports for electricity generation, to some extent due to the deployment of renewables other than hydropower.

Of these, 38 had cut their reliance on electricity from imported coal and gas by more than 10 percentage points and eight had seen that share drop by more than 30 percentage points.

Security and resilience

The IEA stresses that renewables “inherently strengthen energy supply security”, because they generate electricity domestically, while also “improving…economic resilience” in fossil-fuel importer countries.

This is particularly true for countries with low or dwindling domestic energy resources.

The agency cites the energy crisis exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which exposed EU importers to spiralling fossil-fuel prices.

Bulgaria, Romania and Finland – which have historically depended on Russian gas for electricity generation – have all brought their import reliance close to zero in recent years by building renewables.

In the UK, where there has been mounting opposition to renewables from right-wing political parties, the IEA says reliance on electricity generated with imported fossil fuels has dropped from 45% to under 25% in a decade, thanks primarily to the growth of wind and solar power.

Without these technologies, the UK would now be needing to import fossil fuels to supply nearly 60% of its electricity, the IEA says.

Other major economies, notably China and the EU, would also have had to rely on a growing share of coal and gas from overseas, if they had not expanded renewables.

As well as increasing the need for fossil-fuel imports from other countries, switching renewables for fossil fuels would require significantly higher energy usage “due to [fossil fuels’] lower conversion efficiencies”, the IEA notes. Each gigawatt-hour (GWh) of renewable power produced has avoided the need for 2-3GWh of fossil fuels, it explains.

Finally, the IEA points out that spending on renewables rather than imported fossil fuels keeps more investment in domestic economies and supports local jobs.

Q&A: How countries are using biofuels to meet their climate targets

Energy

|

08.10.25

Analysis: Great Britain has run on 100% clean power for record 87 hours in 2025 so far

Renewables

|

29.09.25

Analysis: India’s power-sector CO2 falls for only second time in half a century

Emissions

|

18.09.25

IEA reiterates ‘no new oil and gas needed’ if global warming is limited to 1.5C

International policy

|

16.09.25

The post IEA: Renewables have cut fossil-fuel imports for more than 100 countries appeared first on Carbon Brief.

---

From Carbon Brief via this RSS feed

With voluntary commitments to cut methane pollution floundering, the prime minister of Barbados urged fellow leaders at the United Nations last month to draw up a “legally binding global agreement” to reduce emissions of the particularly potent greenhouse gas.

Mia Mottley told the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Summit in New York that voluntary efforts like the UAE-led Oil and Gas Decarbonisation Charter – signed by over 50 oil and gas companies – were “not enough” to rein in methane. She said governments should urgently discuss a “no more than two-or-three page agreement on the reduction of methane as a matter of legally binding obligations”.

The Barbadian leader – who has a global reputation for proposing new ideas on climate action and finance – said governments “do not need to reinvent the wheel”. She suggested replicating the 1987 Montreal Protocol that has phased out the production and use of CFC and other gases found in fridges and air conditioners that were responsible for opening a hole in the Earth’s ozone layer.

That protocol put in place legally binding reduction targets for these chemicals, many of which are also greenhouse gases, incentivising government policies to make companies redesign their appliances.

Emissions of ozone-depleting substances have since dropped by almost 100%, and the ozone layer is closing, with Mottley calling it “the most successful climate agreement in history”.

Why focus on methane?

Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas that is more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2). Experts say cutting methane emissions is a “low-hanging fruit” for tackling global warming, as it would make a big difference with relatively small actions.

Methane emissions come mainly from the agriculture sector (40%), the oil and gas industry (35%) and waste (20%).

Since COP26 in Glasgow, 111 countries have signed up to the Global Methane Pledge – which aims to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030, compared to 2020 levels.

But, in its latest global tracking update in May, the International Energy Agency said methane emissions from fossil fuels remain at stubbornly high levels. Commitments like the pledge have boosted target-setting and momentum, it added, but so far “few countries or companies have formulated real implementation plans for these commitments, and even fewer have demonstrated verifiable emissions reductions”.

Russia justifies fossil gas use by citing contentious COP28 loophole

Mottley told the summit at UN headquarters that tightening regulation on methane emissions made sense for the planet, fossil fuel firms and farmers – and would help buy time in the short-term as countries roll out their national climate plans to cut greenhouse gases across the board.

Her call was backed by French President Emmanuel Macron and Tuvalu’s Prime Minister Feleti Teo, who both said in their speeches that a “binding commitment” on methane is needed. “We know that this is a reachable goal,” Macron said, adding that methane reduction would be a priority when France chairs the G7 next year.

A more difficult challenge than ozone?

But replicating the Montreal Protocol for methane will be challenging. The vast majority of ozone-depleting gases come from a relatively small number of appliances and so could be reduced relatively easily. On the other hand, methane escapes into the atmosphere from a wide variety of sources including belching cows, rice paddies, landfills, leaking gas pipelines, coal mines and oil production facilities.

While some emissions can be prevented cheaply or even profitably – particularly in oil and gas production – others, like those from cows, are more expensive and politically controversial to avoid.

Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, has previously campaigned against ozone-depleting substances and is now pushing for methane cuts. He spoke alongside Mottley and Macron at a high-profile meeting on methane in New York in late September.

He told Climate Home News that getting a “coalition of the willing” to agree on methane targets is more likely than persuading all the world’s governments to sign up to an agreement. Countries could make their targets legally binding through their own domestic law, he said.

Mar 3, 2025Investigations

Oil giant Pemex fails to control methane emissions, threatening Mexico’s net zero goal

A Climate Home investigation shows Mexico’s state oil firm has struggled to cut its methane emissions as promised, risking the country’s net zero ambitionsRead moreMar 13, 2024Energy

Fossil fuel industry under pressure to cut record-high methane emissions

New regulations and monitoring advances could turn the tide on methane emissions from oil, gas and coal production this yearRead moreMay 10, 2024Nature

World Bank tiptoes into fiery debate over meat emissions

The bank has advised wealthy nations to cut subsidies for high-emissions foods but stopped far short of promoting veganismRead more

An international agreement is possible, he added, “but it also can start from the bottom up” if other governments – including sub-national ones like California and Punjab – adopted similar rules to the European Union’s methane regulation.

The EU requires oil and gas companies to detect and repair methane leaks and bans them from burning gas as a waste product in a process known as flaring. It is also imposing increasingly stringent methane intensity standards – opposed by the Trump administration in the US – on imported fossil fuels.

Zaelke said the next step was for Barbados to try and get the rest of the Climate Vulnerable Forum – a group of around 70 Global South countries which it now chairs – and other small island states on board with the idea.

He predicted that methane would have its “moment” at the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, as reduction of non-CO2 gases is one of the 30 objectives of the COP30 presidency’s “action agenda”.

Mottley’s proposal is expected to be discussed at the pre-COP gathering in Brasilia on October 13-14, although opposition from some countries will likely make reaching global consensus very difficult.

Citing comments by UN chief Antonio Guterres that we are on “the highway to climate hell”, Zaelke said: “We’ve got a methane emergency brake. If you pull it and turn the wheel, you can reverse course and slow warming in the near term more than any other way. I think this is becoming clear and so we’ll see the drumbeat for mandatory pick-up.”

The post Mottley’s “legally binding” methane pact faces barriers, but smaller steps possible appeared first on Climate Home News.

---

From Climate Home News via this RSS feed