Solar panels have been installed on the roof of a mud hut in Kaka, a village near Port St. John's. Photo credit: Per-Anders Pettersson/Getty Images
The government's draft blueprint to deal with South Africa's energy crisis significantly favors fossil fuel-based power generation, which is likely to exacerbate energy poverty, according to the Life After Call campaign. should be rejected.
This is included in their comments on the draft 2023 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) that the campaign, in collaboration with Black Girls Rising, recently submitted to the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy.
According to their submission, by failing to design, incentivize, and adopt clear least-cost paths and by failing to consider the costs of externalities, they “result in overlooking hidden costs in fossil-fuel heavy generation configurations.” IRP 2023 will exacerbate energy poverty.
“Expensive electricity hinders development and impacts society's poorest the most,” the group said, adding that there was no need for expensive and economically risky technologies such as large-scale gas power generation. The campaign is a joint environmental justice campaign between Earthlife Africa, Groundwork and the Center for Environmental Rights.
“Not fit for purpose”
The Draft IRP 2023 is not a fit-for-purpose power resource plan. “This is not consistent with a just transition and does not meet the fundamental need to ensure a reliable electricity supply system, at least in terms of cost, especially in accordance with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,” they said.
As an exercise of public power, the adoption of an IRP is subject to the principle of legality. “Such IRP 2023 must be reasonably related to its purpose, must not violate any provisions of the Constitution or relevant law, and be subject to reasonable public participation as the circumstances require. It must be.”
On these grounds, they said, IRP 2023 is vulnerable to challenges based on its “failure to meet the necessary standards of legality.”
flaw, skepticism
Their submissions highlight “fundamental flaws and skepticism” in the plan's ability to ensure constitutional rights to affordable electricity supply, energy security and a healthy environment.
“Delays in decommissioning existing unreliable coal-fired power plants will perpetuate the costly and dangerous health crisis caused by deadly air pollution from coal-fired power generation,” they said. It noted that the plan had failed to openly account for the costs of these associated impacts. In 2023, Eskom announced that coal pollution kills more than 300 South Africans a year.Additionally, 32,000 South Africans could die if South Africa does not move to a more sustainable path
The idea that energy plans envision new coal in the long-term outlook incorrectly relies on unproven technologies for capturing carbon emissions in pursuit of so-called clean coal, It is a myth supported by vested interests.”
There was very little public engagement in this process, with a short comment period and only two public appearances online. “Furthermore, the provision of underlying information is limited, with few explanations or available calculations motivating the choices IRPs claim to favor.”
climate impact
The submission describes how the government identified South Africa's extreme vulnerability to the impacts of climate change. These will be mainly felt through significant warming (5°C to 8°C across the interior by the end of the century). Impacts on water resources, including reduced water availability. And the frequency of natural disasters will increase.
The group said the effects of drought, extreme weather and fires in South Africa were costing the country billions of dollars. “Nearly every state in the country has recently or currently experienced severe and prolonged drought.
“The effects of climate change will destroy livelihoods and jobs and have long-term impacts on food security, food prices, human settlements and health. Governments will need to subsidize these high costs. We have and will continue to do so.”
It argued that these impacts would be further exacerbated by decisions to expand or extend the use of fossil fuels for electricity production.
protect people from these effects
South Africa is already experiencing more warming than other parts of the world. From 1931 to 2015, western South Africa, including much of the Western Cape and Northern Cape, and eastern South Africa, including the east coast of Gauteng, Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal, experienced temperatures of 2°C or more per century. We saw an increase. This is about twice the rate of global temperature rise.
“This trend is predicted to continue, resulting in more extreme heat waves, droughts, water and food insecurity, wildfires, storms and floods, rising sea levels, and already ongoing increases in vector-borne diseases. doing.”
It is the Government's constitutional duty to ensure that the people of South Africa are protected from these influences and that their rights as enshrined in the Constitution are upheld and protected.
“There is no legitimate basis on which the right to life, dignity, and an environment free from harm to health and well-being can be restricted by plans to further develop fossil fuel capacity, where less harmful alternative fuels are available. Economic development and sustainable livelihoods will suffer in countries devastated by the effects of change.”
Over the next decade, great ambition will be needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently within the required trajectory and to get South Africa to the position it needs to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis .
Doing this requires a commitment to phase out existing fossil fuels and stop investment in new fossil fuels as soon as possible, and to “lock in new fossil fuel infrastructure we don’t need.” You need to make sure to refrain from it.
But despite the available science, the evidence of harm, and the undisputed recognition of this country's government that it is exposed to the harms of climate change, the draft IRP, which includes fossil fuels, is , inconsistent with a just transition,” and addressing climate change is essential.
“We contend that this is not only unreasonable and unreasonable, but also poses a serious threat to the constitutional rights of South African citizens.”