Government has (at last) published a draft of SA’s second nationally determined contribution (NDC) towards the implementation of the Paris Agreement, under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and a department of forestry & fisheries schedule for provincial consultations ahead of the August 29 deadline for comments.
Fortunately, the prospective substance of the NDC has been the subject of a programme of capacity-building workshops and stakeholder dialogues convened by the Presidential Climate Commission (PCC) over the past year, which included developing draft recommendations by the PCC, now considering stakeholder inputs in preparing the final recommendations for an NDC colloquium on August 26.
In light of that work the draft second NDC published by environment minister Dion George on July 31 is cause for dismay, though is not surprising given recent public statements by ministers Gwede Mantashe and Kgosientsho Ramokgopa, who seem to draw encouragement from the antics of Donald Trump while in effect avoiding transparent and accountable planning or decision-making; as has Eskom.
The way it portrays SA is clearly deferential to domestic interest groups that argue for slowing the energy transition — what may be loosely termed the “energy incumbency” with interests in maintaining and expanding fossil fuel value chains — by understating our responsibility and capability and pleading poverty. While careful wording avoids disinformation, the intent is clear, but the narrative fails to offer justification for the inadequate ambition of proposed mitigation (emissions reduction and avoidance) measures and targets for greenhouse gases in 2030 and 2035.
SA’s national circumstances and available opportunities are well researched internationally and climate negotiators and financiers see the trade-offs between the short-term interests of the energy incumbency and the potential cost-savings of a rapid transition to renewable energy, supported by battery energy storage and grid modernisation. Neither the draft document nor any referenced research gives credibility to saying it “represents our highest possible ambition, in the context of equity”.
This piece focuses on the mitigation component of the draft NDC (there is also a need to strengthen the provisions on adaptation and means of implementation), because meaningful public deliberation requires an end to the evasion by both Eskom and the department of energy & electricity regarding an electricity generation plan — most recently seen in Eskom’s presentation to parliament of an ambitious but generic new build plan to 2040, devoid of detailed analysis.
Considerable public resources and effort are directed to mobilising climate finance, which is premised on demonstrable commitment to a just energy transition consistent with global climate goals, but the state and the electricity utility it owns — which accounts for over 40% of our national emissions from the sector that offers the greatest opportunities for and co-benefits of mitigation — are declining to provide emissions projections for the coming decade.
Eskom did reiterate a previous commitment to reduce emissions by 40% by 2030 (consistent with an Eskom emissions target of about 125 Mt CO₂ equivalent in 2030 submitted to the department), but now applies this only to the coal-fired fleet, for which it is promoting various, including unproven, “cleaner coal” technologies to extend their operation.
There was no mention of the additional emissions that will accompany the proposed large fleet of gas-fired plants, which government recently decided should operate at no less than 50% load factor, regardless of the additional costs for electricity users.
The most recent national figures give our greenhouse gas emissions for 2022 as 435 Mt CO₂e, and climate science shows that global emissions must decline at a rate upwards of 7% per annum, yet the upper limit now proposed for 2030 is 420 Mt — a reduction of less than 3.5% over eight years; the upper limit proposed for 2035 is 380 Mt — a total reduction of 12.6% over 13 years and thus less than 1% per annum.
There’s no real attempt to persuade that this is adequate or equitable for a country within the top 15 historical emitters with some the world’s best renewable resources.
For our national lead agent on climate change to pronounce this our highest possible ambition is either dishonest or ill-informed. The latter would be consistent with the state’s persistent failure to implement integrated energy planning, though required by law, or disclose analysis of Eskom’s prevailing plans, but requires ignoring abundant independent research, the recommendations of the PCC and the voices of youth, who will bear the consequences of such a myopic position.
We need an electricity expansion plan that prioritises renewable energy for industrialisation, job creation and universal access to electricity, while reducing local pollution and other externalities of fossil fuel combustion. Our international pledges to climate action should not be held hostage by the energy incumbency — a state committed to a good life for all must set more ambitious mitigation targets.
• Worthington is an associate of Project 90 by 2030 and a member of the Energy Governance SA network.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.