

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Christine Mbithi
Email: christine.mbithi@350.org
As the African Union Summit kicks off in Ethiopia, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) across Africa are calling on the African Union to play a more ambitious role towards a fossil-free energy future in Africa.
In support of the call, CSOs are circulating to Heads of State and Ministers attending the AU meeting the “Fossil Fuelled Fallacy Report Fallacy Report”, which outlines how expanding gas production in Africa would undermine almost every element of development – increasing risks of stranded assets and expensive energy, encouraging foreign ownership of African resources, creating fewer jobs, and harming health and livelihoods across the continent.
The report – initially launched by Don’t Gas Africa, in cooperation with the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative, at COP27 – makes it clear that the ‘dash for gas’ is nothing more than a short-sighted strategy to profit from the energy crisis, where the fossil fuel industry has misappropriated the language of climate justice in order to legitimize a huge expansion of fossil fuels across Africa.
The AU Summit presents an important opportunity for the continent to expand energy access and accelerate the transition to clean, renewable energy. Yet there is a risk the AU Summit will be used to entrench reliance on fossil fuels. CSOs are particularly concerned about a proposal put forward by energy and infrastructure Ministers for an African “common position” on energy which CSOs have showed:
With over 300+ CSO signatures from across Africa, the letter expressing these concerns received no acknowledgement or response from the African Union regarding the proposed “common position”.
The upcoming AU summit provides African leaders with the opportunity to define and set a common narrative that will call for a rapid transition to people-centered, clean, renewable energy for the continent and the whole world.
Civil society organizations call on the African Union to reject fossil gas production as a bedrock for Africa’s energy future and to also put an end to fossil-fuel-induced energy apartheid in Africa, which has left 600 million Africans without energy access. Faced with a climate emergency, it has never been more urgent to shift away from dependence on fossil fuels, and leapfrog towards a renewable energy future that is cleaner, safer, and more economic. A rapid and just transition to renewable energy is a golden opportunity for Africa to reinvigorate its development and achieve its Agenda 2063 vision.
Africa cannot be misled by three false promises of fossil gas: i) jobs, ii) energy access, and iii) renewable transition: i) On Jobs, gas expansion will not lead to a boom in jobs. According to the Fossil Fuel Fallacy Report: Jobs in fossil fuel production are estimated to fall by around 75 percent by 2050 in a “well below” 2°C warming scenario, with 80 percent of the employment losses associated with declining upstream fossil fuel production. ii) On energy access, gas expansion will not increase energy access for the 600 million Africans left without. Gas expansion plans are primarily for export deals with Europe, and many will take 10-20 years to come online. These plans ship our energy, and our profits out of Africa while doing nothing for the Africans without energy today. Renewable investments on the other hand can be brought online in a matter of months and start delivering energy directly to the people this year. Africa has enough wind power potential alone to meet our current electricity demand 250 times over. iii) On renewable transition, gas expansion is not an investment into a ‘transition fuel’. Rather, gas investments displace investment that could be going directly into distributed, clean, and affordable renewable energy systems. Gas expansion does not help us transition to the future, it simply further locks us into the past.
African leaders need to use the AU Summit to initiate a process of transparent and meaningful dialogue with citizens and policy-makers across the continent to build a shared African energy narrative and an agenda to tackle the interlinked challenges of climate, energy and development. Based on these dialogues, the AU should initiate a science- and evidence-based African common position on energy access and transition. This position must break the vicious cycle of energy system dumping, whereby dirty, dangerous, and obsolete fossil fuels and nuclear energy systems no longer wanted in Europe are dumped into Africa in the name of ‘investment and partnership’. Africa must not become a dumping ground for obsolete technologies that continue to pollute and impoverish.
The adoption of fossil gas as a ‘transition fuel’ by the African Union would lock in both a failure for Africa to uphold the Paris Agreement, and near certain exacerbation of climate impacts and catastrophes for its people. Rather than doubling-down on the obsolete and dirty energy systems of the past, African CSOs are calling on the African Union to move away from harmful fossil fuels towards a transformed energy system that is clean, renewable, democratic, and actually serves its peoples. We urge our leaders at the AU summit to reject the misleading false promises of fossil gas expansions, and embrace the renewable future that will bring Africa true hope and prosperity.
Lorraine Chiponda, Coordinator for Africa Climate Movements Building Space said:
“We urge African leaders to co-create a just development path together with African people that is clean, pan-African, and champions people’s regenerative economies away from fossil fuels. We should not allow further colonial and extractive systems to put Africa on a destructive path of fossil fuel extraction.”
Landry Ninteretse, 350Africa.org Regional Director said:
“We're in a climate emergency that is causing increasingly devastating climate impacts, particularly in Africa where adaptation capacity is still low. African countries cannot bear the world’s challenges on their own. This calls for urgent action to build resilience to climate challenges through the abandonment of fossil fuels and a just energy transition to renewable energy. There is no place for the expansion of fossil gas in the energy transition in Africa, as it would crowd out resources for renewable energy and dull any hopes for the transition. We urge African leaders to reject the push for gas production in Africa and instead galvanize resources from developed nations to support renewable, community-centered, and accessible clean energy systems vital to achieving a just energy transition in the region”.
Courtney Morgan, Campaigner for African Climate Reality Project, said:
"Gas is a bridge to nowhere and will not address energy access challenges on our continent. Decision makers and policymakers should be supporting sustainable solutions; for a fossil free Africa. The Africa we want is one where the energy system is clean and sustainable and brings real access to African people. The neocolonial gas project on our continent will not serve our needs and will exacerbate the climate crisis, we need African led sustainable solutions".
Dean Bhekumuzi Bhebhe, Campaigns Lead for Don't Gas Africa said:
“African land is not a gas station. Millions are losing their homes, don’t have access to food, have their health threatened and are slipping into higher levels of extreme poverty because of the fossil fuel industry. Instead of selling away fossil fuel extraction rights to big multinational companies, African leaders should invest in clean, renewable energies that will directly benefit people across the continent without damaging their health”.
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
"Sounds like Trump preparing himself an off-ramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others," said one observer.
President Donald Trump on Friday continued to send contradictory messages on his plans for the US-Israeli assault on Iran, declaring that he is not interested in a ceasefire but is nevertheless considering "winding down" the three-week war, just two days after ordering thousands more troops to the Middle East
Trump wrote on his Truth Social network, "We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran."
Separately, the president told reporters Friday that he does not "want to do a ceasefire" in Iran.
This, after the president reportedly ordered 4,000 additional US troops deployed to the Mideast. On Friday, an unnamed US official told Axios that Trump is considering sending even more troops in order to secure the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and possibly occupy Kharg Island, home to a port from which around 90% of Iran's crude oil is exported.
Sound like Trump preparing himself an offramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others. But as it is Trump, who knows and this could change in short order.
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) March 20, 2026 at 2:21 PM
Trump also said Friday that the Strait of Hormuz must be "guarded and policed" by other nations that use the vital waterway, through which around 20 million barrels of oil passed daily before the war.
Some observers questioned the timing of Trump's "winding down" post. Investment adviser Amit Kukreja said on X that Trump "obviously saw the market reaction towards the end of the day," and "now once again, he’s trying to convince everyone that the war is done; just not sure if the market believes it anymore."
Others mocked Trump's assertion—which he has repeated for two weeks—that the war is almost won, and his claim that he is winding down the operation as he sends more troops and asks Congress for $200 billion in additional funds.
Still others warned against sending US ground troops into Iran—a move opposed by more than two-thirds of American voters, according to a Data for Progress survey published Thursday.
"I cannot overstate what a disastrous decision it would be for President Trump to order American boots on the ground in this illegal war and send US troops to fight and die in Iran," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Friday on social media.
Noting other Trump contradictions—including his declaration that "we're flying wherever we want" and "have nobody even shooting at us" a day after a US F-35 fighter jet was hit by Iranian air defenses—Chicago technology and political commentator Tom Joseph said Friday on X that "Trump has no idea what he’s doing."
"Call out Trump’s incompetence. This war is like a cartoon to him. He desperately needs a series of a catastrophes to distract from Epstein so he’s letting it happen," Joseph added, referring to the late convicted child sex criminal and former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein. The war is solvable, but Trump has to go be removed from office first."
"It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash," said one press freedom advocate.
A federal judge in Washington, DC blocked the US Department of Defense's widely decried press policy on Friday, which The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes had argued violates their rights under the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.
The Times filed its lawsuit in December, shortly after the first briefing for the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps," which critics called those who signed the DOD's pledge not to report on any information unless it is explicitly authorized by the Trump administration. Journalists who refused the agreement turned over their press credentials and carried out boxes of their belongings.
"A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription," Judge Paul Friedman, who was appointed to the US District Court for DC by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 40-page opinion.
"Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation's security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech," he continued. "That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now."
Friedman recognized that "national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected," but also stressed that "especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."
The newspaper said that Friday's ruling "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country. Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars. Today's ruling reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf."
The Times had hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn, who celebrated the decision as "a powerful rejection of the Pentagon's effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war."
"As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the due process clause, but also the founding principle that the nation's security depends upon a free press," Boutrous said. "The district court's opinion is not just a win for the Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, also welcomed the ruling, saying that "the judge was right to see the Pentagon's outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn't exactly a close call. If the same issue was presented as a hypothetical question on a first-year law school exam, the professor would be criticized for making the test too easy."
"It's shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal," Stern declared. "Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court called prior restraints on the press 'the most serious and the least tolerable' of First Amendment violations. At the time, the court was talking about relatively targeted orders restraining specific reporting because of a specific alleged threat—like in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government falsely claimed that the documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg threatened national security."
"Courts back then could never have anticipated the government broadly restraining all reporting that it doesn't authorize without any justification beyond hypothetical speculation," he added. "It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting 'authorized' narratives."
The Trump administration has not yet said whether it will appeal the decision in the case, which was brought against the DOD—which President Donald Trump calls the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," said one critic.
Eighty percent of Lebanese people killed in Israel's renewed airstrikes on its northern neighbor were slain in attacks targeting only or mainly civilians, a leading international conflict monitor said Friday.
Reuters, using data provided by the Madison, Wisconsin-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), reported that 666 people were killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon between March 1-16. As of Thursday, Lebanese officials said the death toll from Israeli attacks had topped 1,000.
While Lebanese authorities do not break down the combatant status of those killed and wounded during the war, Israel's targeting of civilian infrastructure, including entire apartment buildings, and reports of whole families being wiped out, have belied Israeli officials' claims that they do everything possible to avoid harming civilians.
Classified Israel Defense Forces (IDF) data leaked last year revealed that—despite Israeli government claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio—83% of Palestinians killed during the first 19 weeks of the genocidal war on Gaza were civilians.
According to Gaza officials, 2,700 families were erased from the civil registry in the Palestinian exclave during Israel's genocidal assault.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," Lebanese diplomat Mohamad Safa said on social media earlier this week. "The result is exactly what we're seeing in Lebanon and Iran right now."
US-Israeli bombing of Iran has killed at least 1,444 people, according to officials in Tehran. The independent, Washington, DC-based monitor Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI) says the death toll is over twice as high as the official count and includes nearly 1,400 civilians.
The February 28 US massacre of around 175 children and staff at an elementary school for girls in the southern city of Minab—which US President Donald Trump initially tried to blame on Iran—remains the deadliest known incident of the three-week war.
As Israeli airstrikes intensify and the IDF prepares for a possible ground invasion of southern Lebanon—which Israel occupied from 1982-2000—experts are warning that noncombatants will once again pay the heaviest price.
United Nations officials and others assert that Israel's intentional attacks on civilians are war crimes. Israel is the subject of an ongoing genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who are accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
"Deliberately attacking civilians or civilian objects amounts to a war crime," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesperson Thameen al-Kheetan said earlier this week. "In addition, international law provides for specific protections for healthcare workers, as well as people at heightened risk, such as the elderly, women, and displaced people."
As was the case during Israel's bombing of Gaza and Lebanon following the October 7, 2023 attack, journalists are apparently being deliberately targeted again. Reporters Without Borders said in December that, for the third straight year, Israel was the world's leading killer of journalists in 2025.
"This was a deliberate, targeted attack on journalists," said RT correspondent Steve Sweeney after narrowly surviving an IDF airstrike on Thursday. "There's no mistake about it. This was an Israeli precision strike from a fighter jet."
"But if they think they’re going to silence us, if they think we're going to stay out of the field, they’re very, very much mistaken," he added.