South Africa’s ‘energy crisis’ versus ‘climate crisis’ stand-off

On the eve of the United Nations Climate Conference in Bali late last year, South African Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Marthinus van Schalkwyk had this to say at the Cape Times Environmental Awards in a speech titled: ‘Climate action is affordable’:

A massive effort by South Africa to achieve emissions reductions and "de-carbonise" growth would therefore be required. Given that the energy sector is the single largest source of emissions in South Africa, interventions will have to be aimed in the short term at improving energy efficiency, and over the longer haul diversifying energy sources away from coal, promoting energy security and also research and development of new technologies that will lead to a cleaner, low carbon energy future… I can assure you tonight that the political will is there and that South Africa will not stand back in the face of these challenges. The world is changing, and we will respond to these new challenges.

Post-Bali (where a roadmap is envisioned for even further greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2050) and, more pertinently, mid-energy crisis, I wonder where the political will of South Africa’s government leaders is placed and how different their view of the world now looks. The impact of massive countrywide power cuts on the economy and on personal safety is making everyone squeamish, at the very least. At worst, it has plunged us into unbridled panic.

In short, is climate change still a priority for South Africa?

There is no doubt that perceptions play a crucial role in defining priorities. So, are our individual, corporate and government perceptions about local energy needs on a par with those about climate change? And is government measured enough to weigh those perceptions up and reach a consensus to do what must be done to solve both of these problems? In lieu of a detailed plan from government, let’s consider some of the options we are aware of thus far and how they relate to energy security and climate change imperatives.

At the outset, it is also necessary to highlight the precedent that has been set by van Schalkwyk’s predecessor, Valli Moosa. In Moosa’s 10-year period of office, he was responsible for apartheid-era and some post-apartheid Eskom (SA’s largest utility provider) deals with large aluminum smelters and other multinational corporate projects. According to Patrick Bond these deals resulted in the country being roughly 20 times worse in CO2 emissions per person per unit of output than the United States. Ironically Moosa was recently named in Britain’s Guardian newspaper as one of the top 50 people who could save the planet!

Coal

Contrary to government rhetoric, reliance on coal for energy remains largely unchallenged. In fact, plans for two new coal-fired power stations, which are scheduled to be ready in 2013, have been underway for some time now. Obsolete coal stations are also being brought back into service. As a notoriously ‘dirty’ source of energy, which contributes significantly to climate change, the over-reliance on coal perpetuates our addiction to fossil fuels. The fact that ANC front company Chancellor House has landed 25% of one of the coal-plant tenders, casts further doubt on the motivation for poor energy choices. Another worrying aspect is the impact of the market-based system of carbon trading, which the government vigorously supports. This approach will only aim to justify supposed ‘clean coal’ technologies that would capture emissions, rather than the far more beneficial approach of seeking to ‘keep the coal in the ground’.

Nuclear

Government-endorsed plans for Eskom to build dozens of pebble bed modular reactors (PBMRs) and to constructing a second nuclear powered station near Cape Town are also seriously misguided. Nuclear energy has long being discredited and exhortations of the PBMR being safer, cheaper and cleaner than coal take nothing away from this. It is also highly problematic that the PBMR project receives 100 times more government finance than renewable energy technologies. Even more practically, in the next 10 years it will make no contribution to climate change mitigation and no significant contribution for at least 15.

Energy efficiency

For the short term the drive has been to promote energy conservation through such measures as the retrofitting of energy efficient light bulbs and insulated geysers. There is no doubt that this call is long. However, there is the dilemma that, given the long struggle for electricity by the nation’s poor, a backlash is to be expected. Will an increased burden be placed on the poor, who have been made to bear the brunt of a draconian pre-paid electricity metering system, and more aggressive cut-offs, despite consuming the least amount of energy?

Renewables

Renewable energy is widely lauded for addressing both sustainable development and climate concerns. SA has a vast amount of wind, solar and wave. Thus far, however, we have only really been informed about the possible subsidisation of solar water heaters. Quite contrary to White Paper Policy on Renewable Energy, government subsidies of renewables has been vastly inadequate and targets have not been met. As far as cost concerns go, apart from proposals of a price hike, SA currently has the cheapest dirty coal-fired energy in the world, at R0.12 (US$0.02) per kilowatt/hour, compared with wind-powered energy at R0.46 and solar energy at R0.57. The investment in providing incentives for the use of renewables, as well as financing research into relevant technology, is well below par.

Neighbouring-country assistance

The government has apparently solicited the assistance of neighbouring countries. This too is not without controversy. Firstly most, if not all, of Africa has critical power needs. To cut off even some of that supply, as Eskom plans to do in the Southern African countries it services, will cripple those countries. Moreover, to try to pull that limited energy for its own use is plainly greedy and does little to quell fears of its hegemonic tendencies. Secondly, the government plans to draw power from another controversial source, large hydroelectric dams. Both the Inga dam in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Cahora Bassa in Mozambique have been highly contested by local communities because of the massive population displacements and damage to ecosystems they have caused. Piped infrastructure to SA would also cost millions and The World Commission on Dams is also reported to have condemned them as often contributing more to global warming than coal-generated electricity (through methane emissions from plant decay). Finally, coal fields in the northern province of Tete in Mozambique are also being explored which for reasons explained above, are highly problematic.

Conclusion

Will the government continue to bury their head in these complex issues, pulling out piecemeal solutions that do little to achieve a reasonable and amicable ‘solution consensus’? We live in challenging times, but there is also an incredible opportunity emerging out of the dual energy/climate challenge. The progressive lessons that Africa could take from the current crisis could potentially start move to a socially just, clean, decentralised energy system, whilst at the same time lowering consumption levels. This could be supported by policies that mandate emission and energy reductions and puts a tax on ghg pollution requirements. If Pretoria argues that the political will is there then this needs to be demonstrated, not simply stated in manifestos emerging from political party meetings such as that from the recent ANC Polokwane Conference.

Iss