I HAVE seen growing excitement across Namibia about our renewable energy potential. We’re well aware of the near-endless sunshine in the Namib Desert and the strong winds along our coastlines, which give Namibia some of the best solar and wind energy resources in the world.
These gifts from nature position us to become one of the leaders in green energy, especially green hydrogen, which could generate jobs, economic growth, and greater energy independence for our people.
However, with big announcements and large investments comes important responsibilities.
We must have honest conversations about what constitutes real progress and what may be overly optimistic promises; this very thing is sometimes called greenwashing.
Our duty is to help fellow Namibians understand on-the-ground realities so we can support genuine solutions that benefit our communities, conserve our resources and land, and deliver lasting value for future generations.
THE PROMISE
Namibia has set ambitious and inspiring goals. We aim to develop green hydrogen projects that convert our “sunlight into export earnings”.
Flagship projects like Hyphen Hydrogen Energy near Lüderitz, along with initiatives such as the HyIron Oshivela Facility and Daures Green Hydrogen Village, show real momentum.
These projects promise new jobs, especially during construction, skills development, infrastructure improvements, and extra power that could feed into the national grid.
They also harness partnerships with international players which bring much-needed investment and technology.
For a country that has long imported electricity, this shift offers hope for energy security, industrial growth, and a stronger economy that works for Namibians.
HYPE AND REALITY
We ought to celebrate the benefits that come with embracing our new reality.
Yes, it aligns with our national vision of sustainable development and positions Namibia proudly on the global stage. At the same time, we must stay vigilant.
Greenwashing at this level happens when big-picture narratives about ‘green superpowers’, thousands of permanent jobs, and automatic local benefits overshadow practical challenges and trade-offs.
I’ve reflected on concerns raised by local communities and non-governmental oraganisations (NGOs) for more than two years. Several important patterns have begun to emerge:
- Impact on land and nature: large projects in sensitive areas, including near national parks or biodiversity-rich zones, could harm wildlife, fragile ecosystems, and tourism. In an arid country like Namibia, water use for hydrogen production through electrolysis must be managed carefully.
- Jobs and benefits for Namibians: while construction could create many short-term jobs, the lasting benefits will depend on how deliberately we invest in Namibian skills, training and local participation.
Communities affected by these projects, including indigenous groups, are rightly asking for a fair share of the opportunities and benefits.
- Public participation: Questions remain about the consultation processes, environmental safeguards, and how benefits will flow back to ordinary Namibians rather than mostly leaving the country.
Some critics say the consultations limited public participation, preventing members of elected communities from attending or understanding the unfolding process.
HOTSPOTS OR BLIND SPOTS?
One common sign is vague promises without clear timelines or measurable targets.
You hear grand statements like “thousands of jobs will be made available” or “Namibia will become a green energy global hotspot” but the details are missing, i.e. exactly how many jobs, over what period, for how long, and will we have access to public reporting?
Without these specifics, it becomes almost impossible to track progress or hold anyone accountable when targets slip.
Another red flag is when announcements focus heavily on the positive side while quietly ignoring trade-offs.
Press releases and speeches often highlight massive investment figures, future export earnings, and Namibia’s climate leadership, but say far less about real challenges in our context.
This might mean downplaying water use for electrolysis in our arid country, the potential impact on wildlife and tourism in sensitive areas, or the reality that much of the green hydrogen and ammonia produced could be exported, leaving limited benefits for ordinary Namibians.
I always pause and ask myself this question: what important parts of the story are not being mentioned?
Perhaps the most critical warning sign is when the narrative sounds perfect on paper but overlooks on-the-ground realities.
Projects can ignore our limited local technical skills and capacity, the absolute need for meaningful community consultation, or risks to livelihoods.
The experience with ReconAfrica’s oil exploration in the Kavango regions offers a cautionary tale.
Communities and NGOs raised concerns about weak public participation, meetings that were difficult to access or understand, and insufficient engagement with elected groups.
Reviews later highlighted violations of Namibian laws regarding permits and procedures.
LEARNING CURVE
We must learn from this and insist that renewable energy projects prioritise genuine free, prior and informed consent from the very beginning.
By recognising these signs early, we can move beyond passive hope and start asking sharper questions at public meetings – through the media, and directly with decision-makers to ensure our green energy future truly delivers for our country, our land, and our people.
Failing to address these concerns risks eroded public trust, policy missteps, environmental degradation, social conflict, and reputational damage internationally.
– Disney Andreas is a Namibian communication professional specialising in environmental and science communication. This article is not linked to the organisation for which she works, nor is it directed at any particular entity, project or leader. The aim is to contribute to the conversation on Namibia’s green energy future.
