Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that air pollution is a critical global health threat, causing 7 million premature deaths annually, and advocates for a strategic, integrated approach within health systems. It outlines a pathway involving Health Impact Assessments (HIA), health infrastructure assessments, capacity building for professionals, and cross-sectoral collaboration. Through case studies from India, the UK, Singapore, the Philippines, and South Africa, it demonstrates how data-driven tools like WHO's AirQ+, solarization of clinics, and community-led legal action can mitigate health burdens and drive systemic policy change.

The report argues that air pollution is a critical global health threat, causing 7 million premature deaths annually, and advocates for a systemic integration of air quality management within health systems. It outlines a five-part framework: conducting health impact assessments (HIAs), evaluating health system infrastructure and vulnerability, strengthening capacity through early warning systems and professional training, fostering intersectoral and transboundary leadership, and incorporating community needs into policy. Through global case studies, it demonstrates how tools like the WHO's AirQ+ software in Trinidad and Tobago, solarization of health centers in Chhattisgarh, India, and the transboundary haze management of ASEAN can reduce the health burden and improve system resilience.

The report details a community health screening in Phola, Mpumalanga Highveld, finding severe environmental degradation and widespread health issues linked to coal mining. Key findings include high rates of respiratory symptoms, chronic conditions, and a strong community perception that the environment is hazardous. The study also highlights socio-economic vulnerabilities, including high unemployment and reliance on social grants, and recommends strategies for government, healthcare providers, and the community to mitigate these impacts.

This government notice and accompanying Terms of Reference establish the National Environmental Consultative and Advisory Forum to advise the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment on applications for the suspension and postponement of compliance with Minimum Emission Standards (MES) and the issuance of Provisional Atmospheric Emission Licences (PAEL).

The Centre for Environmental Rights asserts that South Africa's transition from coal must go beyond energy shifts to encompass a radical restructuring of society. The author warns that southern Africa is warming at twice the global rate, making incremental change impossible. The document advocates for an "Open Agenda for a Just Transition" that integrates clean energy with food sovereignty, gender justice, and a new economic system based on human needs rather than profit.

The Life After Coal campaign, comprising the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), groundWork (gW), and Earthlife Africa (ELA), submitted formal objections on 28 August 2020 against Eskom's applications for alternative emission limits at the Medupi and Matimba power stations. The campaign argues that these requests are an unlawful attempt to circumvent South Africa's Minimum Emission Standards (MES) and violate constitutional rights to a healthy environment.

The Public Health Association of South Africa (PHASA) calls for a 'healthy recovery' from COVID-19 that avoids returning to unsustainable economic patterns. The group argues that air pollution from coal-fired power stations, particularly in the Mpumalanga Highveld, exacerbates respiratory diseases and coronavirus mortality. PHASA advocates for a just energy transition to renewables, the closure of coal mines, and the active involvement of the health sector in the Presidential Climate Change Commission to address the intersecting crises of pandemics and climate change.

The Life After Coal Campaign argues that the Draft Regulations Amending the Electricity Regulations on New Generation Capacity, 2011 are redundant and legally inconsistent. They contend that the Electricity Regulation Act (ERA) does not require Ministerial approval for municipalities to establish electricity capacity, and that such regulations create unnecessary barriers to the urgent transition to clean energy. The document highlights the severe health, environmental, and economic harms of South Africa's coal-dependent energy sector and criticizes the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) 2019 for unjustifiably constraining renewable energy while permitting new coal and gas capacity. The campaign recommends that if the regulations proceed, they must include requirements for environmental and health impact assessments, transparent public consultation, and financial support for under-resourced municipalities.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), writing on behalf of the Life After Coal Campaign, submitted comments to the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) regarding a draft ministerial determination to procure 2,000 MW of new generation capacity. The CER argues that this procurement must prioritize clean, affordable, and renewable energy sources over fossil fuels to align with constitutional obligations and public interest, while criticizing the lack of transparency regarding Request for Information (RFI) responses and the inadequacy of the public consultation process.

The report identifies 3,217 self-reported exceedances of AEL limits across 14 coal-fired power stations over a 21-month period. It highlights chronic pollution issues, particularly regarding particulate matter at stations without fabric filters, and criticizes the lack of electronic, standardized reporting.

The report identifies 3,181 exceedances of daily AEL limits for PM, SO2, and NOx across 14 Eskom coal-fired power stations between April 2016 and December 2017. The author notes that these figures are conservative due to incomplete and inconsistent hardcopy reporting. Several plants showed chronic violations, with some AEL limits exceeding the 2015 Minimum Emission Standards. The report recommends transitioning to electronic, standardized reporting that includes unit-level energy production and capacity data to improve transparency and enforcement.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) argues that the draft IRP 2018 is unlawful and irrational because it includes 6,732MW of new coal capacity despite its own findings that a least-cost plan would exclude coal. The CER highlights severe failures in the draft, including inflated electricity demand forecasts, outdated and high cost assumptions for renewables and battery storage, and a total lack of consideration for water and climate change externalities. The document specifically objects to the Thabametsi and Khanyisa coal projects, citing their high emissions and risks to water resources in the Waterberg and Highveld regions. Furthermore, the CER criticizes the Department of Energy for failing to conduct meaningful public consultations with impacted communities and for withholding the Plexos modelling data necessary for transparent stakeholder review.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) has declined an invitation to debate the merits of legal challenges against a proposed coal mine by Atha-Africa Ventures Pty Ltd in a forum proposed by The Voice Community Representative Council. CER and its coalition of eight non-profit organisations oppose the mine because it is located within a declared protected area and a strategic water source area, which they argue would threaten South Africa's water security with non-mitigatable damage. While acknowledging the need for job creation, CER highlights the historical devastation of health and livelihoods caused by coal mining in the Mpumalanga Highveld. Instead of the proposed forum, CER invited The Voice to a meeting in Emalahleni, Mpumalanga, to view the impacts of existing mining and hear presentations on their opposition.

The report concludes that the Highveld Priority Area (HPA) has failed to improve air quality over the decade since its 2007 declaration. Despite the 2012 air quality management plan, ambient air quality remains out of compliance with health-based standards, largely due to industrial non-compliance and government failure in monitoring and enforcement. The authors highlight a deterioration in the monitoring network, inadequate dust control for mining, and a lack of resources and skilled staff within local municipalities. The report specifically criticizes the National Air Quality Officer for granting compliance postponements to major polluters Eskom and Sasol, arguing that this has hindered pollution reduction and violated the constitutional rights of residents.

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 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 National Strategy for Water re-use, published by GreenCape in June 2011, outlines a framework for implementing water re-use projects in South Africa to address the country's water-stressed status. It defines various types of re-use, analyzes drivers such as cost and public perception, and identifies sector-specific needs in agriculture, industry, mining, and power generation. The strategy proposes a policy environment focused on clear guidelines, updated water quality standards, and the leveraging of private sector capacity to ensure sustainable water resource management.

A formal request sent on 29 November 2016 by the Life After Coal Campaign and other environmental organisations to the South African Minister of Energy, seeking an extension for public comment on the Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) and the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Update and demanding the release of critical supporting documents.

The document asserts that "clean coal" is impossible, as the entire coal cycle—from mining to combustion—causes severe damage to health, water, and the climate. It critiques three specific technologies: High Efficiency, Low Emissions (HELE) plants, which only reduce CO2 by up to 20% while increasing costs; Circulating Fluidised Bed (CFB) systems, which increase solid waste and N2O emissions; and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), which remains unproven in South Africa and faces high costs and geological transport challenges. The text highlights that Eskom and Sasol are primary coal users in South Africa, and that wind and solar power are cleaner, cheaper alternatives.