The late president Hage Geingob in 2023 posed a query on social media during the UN Framework Convention (COP28): “Imagine being in a country that has discovered quantities of oil. Yet the same country is making investments in green hydrogen as part of its effort to fight climate change. What would you do?” This question was quite relevant in seeking unpolluted ideas in terms of driving development and sustainability from Namibia’s perspective. That might be views with a stark choice of development. 

From a global lens, it could be seen as schizophrenic, either as a ‘first mover’ in the production of green hydrogen, an energy carrier described as the ‘industrial fuel of the future’, or as a country that ties its fate to the ‘fossil fuels of the past’, for which shrinking markets and stranded assets were expected to become the norm. 

Building on the above perspectives, on the 28 November 2025, I have posed a question on an article in the Namibian newspaper titled ‘Whose climate ethics are we following, and who is policing the police when it comes to the climate change policy agenda?’ This is not to negate nor disavow our commitment to the SDG framework. 

Rather, it underscores the need for contextual flexibility, in the sense that the pursuit of decarbonisation must be reconciled with inclusive growth that allows transition to take place while ensuring no enclave economies nor domestic socio-economic considerations are reproduced. This decision should also be guided by the capacity of the country’s strategic means of production, which includes, for example, green hydrogen, oil and gas, renewable energy, water infrastructure, ports and skills development. 

In the scheme of things, no nation (developed ones) industrialised solely through solar or wind power alone but from a collective of diverse resources. As a result, those that are industrialised, with financial reserves, are now propelled into a better position to finance their energy transitions. However, in the current multipolar world of geopolitical blocs facing geopolitical threats, geo-economic competition, and climate change concern, states now have a choice to make: either develop strategies to align global production networks to satisfy extraterritorial agendas or uplift in-territorial development that can nip poverty, inequality, and unemployment in the bud. In the same line of thought, Namibia’s pursuit of a dual strategic approach of “resilient and resurgent” in the face of simultaneous geopolitical, economic and socio-environmental challenges is precisely to seize opportunities of minerals and resources that are critical to them. 

Although this approach might appear contradictory to some of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, that argument is far from paradoxical, especially for a small economy like Namibia with its structural constraints. For example, Namibia can use revenues generated by the country’s nascent oil sector to fund a 24% state ownership stake in the Hyphen project, using the high-carbon present to pursue its vision for a resilient low-carbon future. That is not contradictory; that is strategic. It is therefore crucial to indicate that these linkages would serve to diversify and industrialise the Namibian economy once executed well. 

By combining the production of oil and green hydrogen, the country would experience the energy renaissance needed not only to spur green industrialisation for Namibia but also to ensure a resilient future for Southern Africa at large. 

However, the question to ask now is how we ensure that the revenue generated and opportunities are utilised parsimoniously so that local integration is maximised and value is effectively absorbed into Namibia’s supply chain for sustainable development. But that will require a clear national strategy where everyone and every industry needs to be aligned to that national strategy, because even the developers need to have that fiscal and investment certainty. Despite it having been worked on, that certainty needs to come sooner rather than later; otherwise, investors will end up going to Saudi Arabia, Chile or Egypt. Besides policy implications, the government also needs to prioritise practical implications such as infrastructure development, particularly in transport, railways, ports, and gas pipelines, to unlock additional investment and support growth. 

For Africa, it will be a monumental mistake to jump the gun and leave things hanging because of a single piece of lopsided advice. We must be in position to drive our energy transition initiatives from within and not based on international hype and order to attain what we envision for our future. 

To waver from that inward looking approach will be detrimental to our economies in the fight for social challenges that already exist in order to move an inch closer to the industrialised world. 

*Tio Nakasole, Analyst at Monasa Advisory and Associates. His insights draw from his experience in economic and policy analysis. The views expressed do not represent those of his employer. – theoerastus@gmail.com