The report stresses that without urgent action on clean air, the financial cost of air pollution in Africa’s cities is predicted to increase by more than 600 per cent by 2040. Studies show that Africa’s cities are likely to house 65 per cent of its population by 2060.

Air pollution killed 1.1 million Africans in 2019, while AIDS related diseases killed 440 thousand.

Tf does this even mean? Can someone stop explain for my drain brain?

It means whoever came up with that headline does not know the definition of the word, pandemic. Which, in 2022, is pretty shocking.

[deleted]

They know they can use it as a big bad buzzword that might get a few simpletons excited about their cause.

Author is stupid AF. They need to go read about industrialization and adoption of energy sources. Developing countries will always default to the cheapest source of energy because it is typically the most plentiful. Over time as a country develops and economy evolves it will shift toward cleaner, but more expensive sources of energy. So unless other wealthy countries step in and build cleaner sources of energy for developing countries, then the cycle will continue as it always has.

The following submission statement was provided by /u/darth_nadoma:

The report stresses that without urgent action on clean air, the financial cost of air pollution in Africa’s cities is predicted to increase by more than 600 per cent by 2040. Studies show that Africa’s cities are likely to house 65 per cent of its population by 2060.

Air pollution killed 1.1 million Africans in 2019, while AIDS related diseases killed 440 thousand.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yixcuc/clean_air_activists_condemn_silent_pandemic_of/iul1ad0/

[removed]

That’s just a consequence of Click bait culture.

i don't even understand how this opinion can, in any way, be controversial. how the fuck are poor countries going to develop sustainably without the help from developed countries?

and for rich countries investing in sustainable development in poorer countries is a de facto investment in the future of their own children, so a investment in their own future prosperity.

how can this be even remotely controversial?

Well, a lot of the time poor countries can step right up to solar since it's small and modular and requires 1000x less upfront investment compared to building out a grid.

development requires stability.

solar and wind are cheap to developed countries because they already built the infrastructure needed, a coal power plant is a permanent source of energy, and an already established tech.

yes for homes in isolated villages solar wind is an improvement. for industry and services in a large city, not so much.

[removed]

I agree that development requires stability. But IMHO the biggest problem African countries face today is the unfair and scandalous economic warfare: e.g. dumping of subsidized goods and services into African markets.

Heavily subsidized Western agricultural goods have ruined African agribusiness, and kept over 70% of African in subsistence farming (as customers would rather buy cheap Western staple food, than local ones. And thus agribusiness is unprofitable, and banks make no loans for a green revolution, i.e. mechanization, modern tools, better fertilizers, pesticides, etc Basically, most Africans still farm like Europe used to do in the Middle Ages....).

Another very obvious ones are 2nd hand stuff, from clothes, to bicycles. These goods devastated entire industries. Just one example, in the early 80s, Kenya had over 500k workers in the textile industry. Then came IMF/world bank imposed austerity on steroids, blind deregulation and privatizations, and indiscriminate opening of borders to all Western goods, including 2nd hand clothes. By late 1980s, the Kenyan textile industry collapsed to just 20k workers, and mostly focused only on the 2nd hand clothing industry... quiet a tragedy! Millions lost their jobs on the continent. And the African street wear was forever changed. For the worse.

And last but not least, most of international aid money is used to pay the donor country's own companies to provide services/goods to African country. For example, a few years ago, a West African country wanted to create a form of eGovernment, or at least an online presence with a platform for its population to use for many different basic bureaucratic necessities, as to streamline governmental services, reducing costs and waiting time for tax-payers and citizens (and donors of course).

Anyways, there was a fair competition. And an African software company won the bid. It was simply better, and cheaper. However, a French company that had also participated and lost (too expensive, too over-engineered, culturally insensitive to local taste, est. ), lobbied the French government. And France in turn blackmailed that country to either give the contract to a French company or risk losing a good chunk of its aid money.... WTF!?! That's just one example.

But there are many other examples of aid money actually benefiting Western and other rich countries' companies and economy, while making African countries carry the debt, and the often useless/in adapted infrastructure and other goods/services.

imho the biggest problem is the current economic system.

Solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels, so to say clean energy is expensive would mean dirty energy is even more expensive.