Rich nations polluted the world as they industrialised over the centuries, unleashing a global warming the cataclysmic effects of which are now felt most severely by poorer countries.
It is also clear that the effects of the use of fossil fuels — unpredictable weather patterns, droughts and floods that have displaced millions — are too destructive to live with.
Through efforts led by the UN Conference of the Parties, COP27, there is consensus, too, that the world must transition to cleaner, green energy sources. Given that those most affected contributed least to emissions, the question that arises is: who should carry the costs of this transition?
At COP26 in Glasgow last year, France, Germany, the UK, the US and EU offered South Africa $8,5bn as part of what became the Just Energy Transition Partnerships.
South Africa, it was announced this week, is to receive R10,7bn in concessional financing through the French and German public development banks to help reduce reliance on coal.
At this year’s summit President Cyril Ramaphosa told delegates South Africa will need R1,5-trillion in investment to support its just transition. The question is how much of the funding will be concessional and how much commercial? Transparency is crucial as whatever new debt is incurred will ultimately have to be repaid by South African taxpayers. Concessional or not, these are, at the end of the day, still loans.
As a country, we are duty-bound to contribute to the global goal of net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases by the middle of this century. The issue has divided the country into supporters of fossil fuels, on the one hand, and green energy campaigners, on the other. This division plays into the hands of powerful global forces pursuing their own interests. Clean, renewable energy is the ideal that all nations, rich and poor, must work towards. There can be no debate about the need to transition.
In South Africa, Eskom is the behemoth most responsible for emissions, but it is also a strategic asset that keeps our economy chugging along.
In our rush to transition, we must not create more challenges for our already struggling source of power. Our government would do well to scrutinise the terms of the proposed financing to ensure we don’t burden future generations with crippling debt, which may constrain funding for our developmental needs.
Those who polluted the globe must take the most responsibility in sponsoring the transition
In any case, much of our high-quality coal is in high demand in developed countries, some of which are encouraging us to dispense with coal. Energy and resources minister Gwede Mantashe said this week demand for South African coal rose by 700% after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
It would be futile to export our coal while starving South Africa’s economy of the energy necessary for growth and job-creation. We must not decommission our power plants in a manner that would sabotage our industrialisation, which is dependent on security of energy supply. The ever-present reality of load-shedding adds emphasis to this priority.
The richer countries must help the developing world: not with loans, but donations to finance the transition. This would make the transition just. Those who polluted the globe must take the most responsibility in sponsoring the transition.
To the extent that loans are necessary, we should not simply accept what is on offer: the terms must be far better and easier than those offered by commercial banks and development financing institutions.
Our country’s priority ought to be to stabilise the grid — and then transform it to become cleaner. Future generations should not be left with a polluted world, nor with poorly-negotiated debt. We should bequeath them a world and economy better than we inherited.
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.