Havana has bypassed a $100 million American aid package to seek technical advice from London in a move that underscores the escalating energy crisis gripping the island nation. The decision, announced by Cuba’s Ministry of Energy and Mines late Tuesday, follows weeks of rolling blackouts and fuel shortages that have paralysed daily life. This latest development raises questions about the politicisation of climate adaptation and the growing tension between immediate disaster relief and long-term sovereignty.
The US aid offer, proffered by Secretary of State Antony Blinken during a virtual summit last month, was framed as humanitarian assistance to stabilise Cuba’s grid. But for a country that has endured a six-decade embargo, the proposal was met with deep suspicion. Cuban officials reportedly balked at conditions tied to the funding, including demands for independent oversight of resource distribution. The optics of accepting American dollars to power the capital’s hospitals felt, to many in Havana, like a colonial transaction.
Enter the British. A delegation from London’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero arrived in Havana on Wednesday, carrying not cheques but technical blueprints. The offer: expertise in grid modernisation, renewable integration and efficiency upgrades using low-cost capital. The contrast is stark. Where America sees a cash injection, Britain sees a knowledge transfer. “This is not about writing a blank cheque,” a British government spokesman told the BBC. “It is about sharing what we have learned in decarbonising our own grid and helping Cuba leapfrog the fossil fuel trap.”
The physics of the crisis are straightforward. Cuba relies on aged oil-fired plants and imported Venezuelan crude, both unreliable. As global temperatures rise, demand for cooling has surged, pushing a frail system to breaking point. Blackouts are no longer occasional; they are chronic. The country loses an estimated 2% of GDP annually to energy poverty, according to the World Bank.
Yet the solution is not merely technical. The US offer came with strings attached and memories of the 1960s economic embargo remain raw. By contrast, Britain has no such historical baggage in Cuba. The partnership is a careful dance around the politics of dependence. For Havana, accepting British advice allows it to address a critical infrastructure failure without appearing to capitulate to its long-time adversary.
The irony is not lost. The United Kingdom, a nation that contributed disproportionately to historical emissions, now finds itself dispensing lessons on sustainable energy to a postcolonial state that has done little to warm the planet. The physics of the atmosphere does not respect embargoes. But the politics of assistance does.
This pivot to London could accelerate Cuba’s transition to renewables. The island has abundant solar and wind potential, yet only 4% of its electricity comes from clean sources. British engineers specialise in offshore wind and battery storage, technologies suited to a grid that needs to weather both hurricanes and fuel shortages.
However, the deal is not a cure-all. Cuba remains trapped by the Helms-Burton Act and US sanctions that restrict access to global capital markets. London can offer expertise, but not the billions needed to overhaul the entire system. The $100m US offer, had it been accepted, could have covered one large solar farm or a fleet of storage units. Now, that money will likely go elsewhere.
Skeptics argue that Havana is playing politics with a humanitarian crisis. The average Cuban citizen cares little about sovereignty semantics when they cannot run a refrigerator. Others contend that accepting US money would have set a dangerous precedent: the superpower dictating terms for basic survival.
What is clear is that the energy transition is now inexorably entwined with geopolitics. Cuba’s choice to turn to London signals a wider trend: nations increasingly seek partners who offer technology without conditionality, who respect the boundaries of national autonomy even as they provide critical support.
For Dr. Helena Vance, the bottom line is this: the planet is warming and grids are failing. How we deliver aid matters as much as the aid itself. The British model may be slower and less flashy than a $100m cheque, but it might just be more sustainable.
The temperature continues to rise. The blackouts continue to spread. And a small Caribbean island continues to navigate the treacherous currents of energy diplomacy.
