SA has a chance to drive a global just transition – if we can get it right at home

3 Dec 2024

If South Africa is ever to achieve a ‘just transition’, there needs to be far greater interrogation of the currently unregulated lobbying by big emitters that allows them to evade legal compliance and weaken climate regulations.

On 1 December 2024, South Africa took over the rotating presidency of the G20, which includes 19 states, the European Union and the African Union.

The presidency of the G20 could offer us an opportunity to take the lead in moving away from fossil fuels – if our position on the “just transition” was clearer.

President Cyril Ramaphosa has said that South Africa will push for “people-driven, sustainable development”. Unfortunately, though we have a good plan on paper (and a definition in our new Climate Change Act); in practice, progress on the just transition is held back by conflicting narratives and manipulation of the facts, largely driven by the influencing power of the fossil fuel lobby.

As the world’s 7th largest coal producer, with fossil fuels accounting for some 80% of our electricity, and with the highest inequality in the world in 2023, South Africa’s path to a just transition is particularly challenging.

Expansion

Compounding this complexity are multiple strands of anti-climate action propaganda which manifest in repeated calls for climate action to be delayed and/or for large-scale investment in new fossil fuels to be rolled out. Such calls are echoed throughout the continent, where it is widely claimed that Africa’s development requires an expansion of fossil fuel reliance. This view is not supported by climate science.

One such cynical example is the recent threat by a prominent Cameroonian lawyer to sue Western financiers for not investing in African oil and gas projects. He describes this as “oil and gas apartheid” that is “throttling finance” and “impeding the development of the continent at the time it needs it most”. It remains to be seen whether that threatened litigation materialises, but its prospects of success would be slim.

The evidence against gas is solid: it is neither clean nor climate- nor environmentally friendly. Energy modelling has repeatedly demonstrated that the power sector does not require significant quantities of gas for energy access or security.

On the contrary, the evidence shows that increasing Africa’s exposure to fossil fuels will have detrimental consequences for the continent: Mozambique’s recent experiences should be more than sufficient to dispel the myth that gas discoveries automatically create economic prosperity.

‘Transition fuel’

Another manipulation of the “just transition” concept is the now prevalent argument that gas is a “transition” fuel. This claim goes that because gas emits less carbon dioxide than coal when it is burnt, it can be employed as a “bridge” between coal and a lower-carbon, renewable energy future.

This flawed view, which ignores the substantial methane leaks through the gas life cycle, has gained convenient traction among financiers keen to support oil and gas projects, and all of SA’s biggest banks state that they regard gas as a “transition fuel”. Nedbank is the only one of these banks to have any current exclusion on gas financing, while Standard Bank goes so far as to frame its financing of oil and gas across Africa as a moral duty in the interests of advancing development on the continent.

The most significant flaw in the “transition fuel” argument is that it ignores the fact that we already have a “transition” fuel: coal. Our electricity system is still predominantly reliant on coal and will be for at least a decade while renewable energy deployment ramps up.

Making significant investments in gas as an additional “transition” fossil fuel – as well as all the infrastructure expenditure that would be required to accompany gas’s deployment – would be a nonsensical waste of resources. This would benefit only those involved directly in the project deals – which explains the banks’ appetite for gas.

Compliance exemptions

In addition, self-interested lobbying by polluters like Eskom and Sasol has substantially delayed and weakened air pollution laws intended to limit the severe health impacts of industrial pollution. This has also prolonged the life of fossil fuels, obstructing the transition.

Instead of the government enforcing laws set to protect human health and other constitutional rights, polluters have been allowed to succeed in their efforts to use “balancing act”-type arguments to escape legal compliance. This is the antithesis of justice. The effect of toxic pollution falls most heavily on poor people – who have not only been (and will continue to be) worst affected by SA’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels, but who remain desperately underserved by the current systems.

Towards the end of her tenure as environment minister (2019-2024), Barbara Creecy controversially granted five Eskom coal power stations, earmarked for decommissioning by 2030, “once-off suspensions” of compliance with standards set in 2010 to govern toxic air pollution. For the duration of their lifetimes, these plants can ignore the air pollution laws designed to regulate them; laws that are significantly weaker than those of many developing countries, including India and China.

Creecy invited other coal power stations to apply for compliance exemptions, which they have since done. In justifying her decision, she cited the need to balance “competing interests”, such as “the impact of non-compliance [with the minimum emission standards] on health; ambient air quality standards; the energy crisis facing South Africa; the cost of retrofitting plants; socioeconomic considerations and commitments to reducing GHG emissions”.

Leniency

Creecy’s leniency towards Sasol was equally questionable. Following extensive lobbying by industry, sulphur dioxide standards (SO2) set in 2010 were made doubly as weak in 2020. Although Sasol had indicated that it could comply with the doubly lax standards, in 2022 it sought an “alternative” SO2 limit for its 17 coal boilers.

In one of her final interventions as Environment Minister, Creecy granted Sasol’s appeal for this additional leniency. She cited the need to “balance” “socioeconomic, ecological and health impacts” in a country “plagued by high unemployment and poverty rates” and in which Sasol is a significant contributor to the economy. Creecy did not explain why enforcing the standards would impact on Sasol’s ability to support the local economy.

There is little to suggest that Dion George, who succeeded Creecy in July 2024, might adopt a different stance. Shortly after his appointment, the new minister said he was not opposed to the Eskom exemptions Creecy had granted and made a further appeal decision on Sasol’s SO2 limit.

In a September Presidential Climate Commission briefing, George said that the country was moving as fast as it could, but that the speed at which it did so was hampered by “developmental complexities”. He expressed similar sentiments at the October National Stakeholder Consultation on SA’s Negotiating Mandate at COP29, including commenting that “we want economic growth obviously – that is why we must transition sensibly”, and that “we cannot be dictated to and we cannot be pushed around” in terms of the pace at which we move away from fossil fuels.

Government condonence

The government’s record of condoning non-compliance by Eskom and Sasol, Africa’s biggest contributors to toxic air pollution and greenhouse gases, has not gone unnoticed.

In a July 2024 report following his SA visit, UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights Dr Marcos Orellana called out “the detrimental impact of toxic pollution” in the country, particularly on poor black communities, that is “fuelled by corporate greed and government inaction”.

If South Africa is ever to achieve a “just transition”, there needs to be far greater interrogation of the currently unregulated lobbying by big emitters that allows them to evade legal compliance and weaken climate regulations.

The false narratives around fossil fuels also beg greater scrutiny: in particular, we should be interrogating the claims (never substantiated) that reducing emissions will have dire socioeconomic consequences, and ask ourselves why the vested interests of big industry are continuously allowed to trump constitutional rights. DM

Robyn Hugo is director of climate change engagement at shareholder activism organisation Just Share.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REeWvTRUpMk

Categories:

Tags:

DM is much better if you are signed in...

Our Burning Planet

Expansion

‘Transition fuel’

Compliance exemptions

Leniency

Government condonence