Every day I rely on a massive industrial system for my lifestyle, my convenience, and in many ways for my survival. By flicking on a switch or turning on my computer I set into motion a giant fossil fuel burning behemoth, comprised of thousands of miles of wire, and a whole series of components that would boggle the mind if it were not so common place. I use electricity from the national grid.

This puts me in a club with most everyone in the developed world. We simply could not get by without out centrally provided electricity. Have 24 hour a day electricity allows us to have hospitals and all of the life saving equipment inside, it allows me this computer, it allows me safety, security, warmth, light, and a bevy of less important but enjoyable things.

These and many other reasons are why Ethiopia wants to provide that same security to its people.

Ethiopia, whose population is expected to swell from 75 million to more than 100 million by 2015, plans to light up the entire country in the next eight years, the head of the Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO) said on Wednesday.

Across Africa costly blackouts, strained power supplies and patchy electrification frequently plunge the world’s poorest continent into darkness, stifling much-needed development.

(via)

At first blush it seems like a great idea, with electrification comes all the wonderful things I get to enjoy every day. There is however a darker side to all this, if Ethiopia begins burning large amounts of fossil fuels to create its power this will lead to more green house gasses, as more and more of the nations of the world that currently do not have wide spread electrification do the same the problems of global warming will grow worse and worse. India, China, and many other places have the potential to pump out horrific amounts of C02.

But why should we be the haves and they be the have nots, why should they be forced to live without electricity because it would push a world on the brink over the edge (an edge developing nations drove us to)? It is a hard question. There is however a way for everyone to win in this situation.

EEPCO General Manager Mihert Debebe said a combination of hydro, geothermal and wind power generation projects, plus distribution and transmission programmes would help Ethiopia achieve its ambitious goal.

The Horn of Africa country produces 800 MW of electricity from hydropower dams, reaching 19 percent of the 75 million population.

“By 2010, the country will be able to generate over 4,000 MW of power and install 135,000 km of distribution lines as well as 12,000 km of high voltage networks to electrify 6,000 towns and villages providing access to electric power to over 50 percent of the country’s population,” Mihert told reporters.

The construction of five hydropower dams, including Tekeze with a capacity of 300 MW, Gellgele Gibe 2 with a capacity of 420 MW and Belesse with a capacity of 435 MW was expected to be completed by 2010, Mihert said.

“The construction of geothermal and wind power generation in addition to hydropower dams during the next eight years will help achieve total electrification of the country by 2015,” he added.

Renewable energy sources allow developing nations to provide energy to their people without pumping large amounts of C02 into the air, without contributing to global warming. But even this Rosy solution does not come without some significant strings attached. Hydropower is often the renewable energy of choice for developing nations. It is in some ways the easiest and most reliable way to generate large amounts of electricity. There are often UN backed funding programs to help pay for the dams and the technology is tried and tested.

Large scale hydropower is anything but perfect, dams silt up, they block rivers that people down stream desperately need for food water and transportation, rivers do not always flow in only one country, large scale dam’s wreak havoc on the local ecosystem. The construction of cement structures also pumps a large amount of C02 into the atmosphere. We are again focused with the question of have vs have not. Why do we get to burn all the coal we want, but China and India can not build a huge dam that will destroy a river ecosystem?

Do not give up hope. There seems to be a small opening here for a move towards a sustainable future. Let us not forget that even though we are only a small percentage of the worlds population the United States is the single largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, by far. If we are concerned about the C02 emissions of China or India we could start by lowering our own emissions. This would give us the wiggle room to implement the next step in our plan.

While we lower our own green house gas emission, we develop and export renewable energy technology to the developing world. America has the innovative spirit to produce cheap effective wind turbines and solar panels. We have the technology to create solar heating, small scale hydro, biomass and biofuel solutions. We can then sell these technologies to China, India, Ethiopia, and every other nation in the world that needs a clean distributed renewable electricity grid. We will maintain them (for a price they can afford) and then teach them how to do it themselves (also for a price). America can get rich exporting clean renewable technology to the world while solving the problems of man made global warming.

Energy security in developing nations also helps our economic and security interests. When someone has power, they can have clean water, sanitation, and a higher quality of life. This in turn leads to a diminished likelihood that they will become radical suicide bombers. People with food, water, shelter and a good job rarely choose to strap a bomb to themselves and attack someone else.

With a higher quality of living comes more disposable income, this would transform the developing world into a large “global middle class.” Not only would they be hungry for (sustainable green and renewable) American goods, but a large global middle class makes it less likely that they would be able to provide labor cheaper than we could here. Developed nations also have lower birth rates, leading to less famine, and hunger from over population. It would also be less likely that jobs would be sent overseas (why bother when you will have to pay them just as much as you would here). Its well documented that a large middle class is also beneficial to the formation of democratic societies. Perhaps we could build nations with affordable food, water, and renewable energy instead of missiles tanks and guns.

None of these proposed solutions would come easy, or cheap (cheaper than a potential 1 trillion dollar war in Iraq?) But they could be done. It would take years of struggle but the end result would be a clean world powered by renewable energy. A place where someone could turn on a light no matter what nation they live in.