Search Climate Insights Directory

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) provides detailed legal submissions on a draft Air Quality Management By-law, advocating for stronger public participation, mandatory rather than discretionary emission standards, and the removal of 'rectification' provisions for unlawful activities.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) has identified significant discrepancies in the National Air Quality Officer's (NAQO) decisions regarding Eskom's applications for postponement of minimum emission standards (MES). The CER highlights inconsistencies between the postponement periods and emission limits sought by Eskom and those actually granted, as well as a lack of clear commencement dates for certain standards. Specifically, the CER notes that for several power stations, the NAQO appears to have granted open-ended postponements for SO2 emissions 'until decommissioning' or implicitly granted 2020 MES postponements that were not explicitly requested. The document seeks formal clarification on these administrative inconsistencies to advise environmental justice organisations and impacted community groups.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) provides submissions on the first draft of the Nkangala District Municipality (NDM) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The CER identifies significant gaps in technical and financial capacity, a lack of alignment with the Highveld Priority Area (HPA) AQMP, and deficiencies in health impact assessments and monitoring. The submissions call for the NDM to prioritize staffing, ensure transparency in air quality data, and implement stricter dust control regulations.

The document presents a framework for achieving clean air in China, emphasizing the need for a robust air quality management system, the application of Best Available Control Technologies (BACT), and the alignment of fiscal policies with pollution goals. It advocates for the removal of fossil fuel subsidies, the implementation of a coal cap to reduce coal's share of the energy structure to less than 50% by 2030, and the adoption of Euro 6 fuel standards by 2018 for heavy-duty trucks and off-road vehicles. The experts highlight that integrating air pollutant and greenhouse gas reductions is more cost-effective than treating them separately.

The document examines the drivers and implementation of low-carbon policies in China, noting a transition from national targets to local design across provinces and industrial zones. While this approach allows for local adaptation and policy learning, it has created a complex, overlapping regulatory environment that causes industry uncertainty, risks high compliance costs, and may lead to capital lock-in of high-emitting technologies. The text also references a separate IISD study on the fiscal risks facing BRIICS nations, including China, due to the global transition away from fossil fuels.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing various environmental NGOs and community groups, has requested the Department of Environmental Affairs to provide copies of decisions and written reasons regarding the postponement of compliance time-frames for minimum air quality emission standards for 35 facilities.

The document argues that agricultural management is overly driven by food production, leading to a decline in the ecosystems it depends on. It advocates for an ecosystem-based approach to food security and introduces semantic meta-modelling as a tool to integrate various models and quantify trade-offs between crop yields and regulating services like water quality and climate regulation. Using a case study in the Basque Country, the authors demonstrate that informed farming practices, such as adjusting manure application and reducing tillage, can significantly reduce emissions and nitrate leaching without necessarily compromising winter wheat yields.

The report advocates for the EPA to establish direct methane standards for the oil and gas industry, which it identifies as the largest industrial source of methane in the U.S. It proposes three primary control measures: regular leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs, upgrading older compressors and pneumatic equipment, and capturing gas from wells. The authors argue these measures are low-cost, commercially available, and would reduce methane emissions by 3.2 to 3.7 million metric tons per year, while also significantly lowering volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and toxic air pollutants.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) sent a letter to the chairperson of the Nkangala District Municipality (NDM) Implementation Task Team (ITT) on 29 October 2014. The letter outlines specific requests for the 13 November 2014 meeting and future ITT meetings to ensure the proper implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Highveld Priority Area (HPA).

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted a statement to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) opposing Eskom's applications to postpone compliance with Minimum Emission Standards (MES). The CER argues that Eskom failed to provide required health impact assessments and future compliance plans, while monitoring data indicates that Eskom's emissions cause frequent, year-round exceedances of air quality guidelines, contributing to significant regional health risks.

The letter argues that Sasol and Natref's court application to set aside air pollution regulations threatens public health and environmental rights, particularly in the Vaal Triangle and Highveld Priority Areas. The signatories contend that Sasol's high profitability makes its claims of prohibitive compliance costs immoral and that granting exemptions would set a dangerous precedent for other polluters, including Eskom.

The National Environmental Compliance & Enforcement Report 2013/14 details the activities of South Africa's Environmental Management Inspectorate (EMI). Key trends include a 12.26% increase in registered EMIs and a significant rise in reported environmental incidents. While industrial sectors like cement and refineries show improved performance due to proactive inspections, biodiversity crimes—particularly rhino poaching—remain a critical concern despite heavy court sentences. The report also highlights legislative updates, judicial precedents regarding the 'polluter pays' principle, and capacity-building initiatives for law enforcement and prosecutors.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several environmental justice organisations, submitted comments on the draft National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory System (NAEIS) Reporting Regulations. The CER argues that the draft regulations contain overly broad confidentiality restrictions that hinder public access to emissions data, contradicting international best practices and South African constitutional and statutory principles.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted a letter to the Department of Environmental Affairs on 24 June 2014, arguing that Eskom failed to conduct necessary health impact assessments for its applications to postpone Minimum Emission Standards (MES). The CER highlights expert estimates of significant premature deaths and economic costs resulting from Eskom's emissions and notes that Eskom previously withheld its own internal health risk reports from the public.

The city of Chiang Mai implemented a non-motorised transport (NMT) system to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and address urban pressures caused by rapid growth and tourism. This initiative provided co-benefits including improved air quality, reduced traffic congestion, and income generation for the urban poor. While the project served as a catalyst for broader low-carbon action and sustainable land-use practices within the city, it also highlighted a trade-off: local initiatives can reduce in situ emissions but cannot address the emissions generated by tourists traveling to the destination.

Earthjustice and a coalition of nonprofit organizations petition the EPA to regulate oil and gas wells as area sources, arguing that the rapid expansion of drilling—particularly via hydraulic fracturing—in metropolitan areas poses a non-negligible risk to public health. The document details the emission of toxic air pollutants such as benzene and formaldehyde, highlights the vulnerability of children and overburdened communities, and identifies significant regulatory gaps in existing EPA rules. It concludes that available technologies, such as green completions and vapor recovery units, can substantially reduce these emissions.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several community and environmental groups, submitted a formal reply on 24 March 2014 challenging Eskom's applications for postponement from the Minimum Emission Standards (MES). The CER disputes Eskom's claims that its power stations have a marginal impact on air quality and health, arguing that Eskom's Atmospheric Impact Reports (AIRs) are anecdotal, use insufficient modeling domains, and fail to quantify the health risks associated with secondary PM2.5 formation and mercury emissions.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), acting for several environmental justice organisations, submitted comments on the Department of Environmental Affairs' (DEA) Draft Air Quality Offset Policy. The CER and its clients oppose the use of offsets in principle, arguing they serve as a "cheap option to avoid compliance" with emission standards and could undermine the constitutional right to a healthy environment. The submission highlights significant gaps in the draft policy, including a lack of clear criteria for determining offsets, poor institutional capacity for monitoring and enforcement, and failure to address equity and distributional effects.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several environmental justice organisations, submitted comments on 21 February 2014 regarding the Draft National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory System (NAEIS) Reporting Regulations. The submission primarily argues that the draft regulations fail to ensure adequate public access to atmospheric emission data and provides recommendations to align the regulations with constitutional rights to information and a healthy environment.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing several community and environmental groups, submitted a response to the Nkangala District Municipality opposing Eskom's application to vary the atmospheric emission licence for the Kriel Power Station. The CER argues that the variation would permit increased emissions of particulate matter (PM10) and mercury, leading to significant public health risks and economic costs, while challenging Eskom's dispersion modelling and cost calculations for abatement technology.