Search Climate Insights Directory

The Life After Coal Campaign opposes Eskom's plan to install temporary bypass stacks at the Kusile power station, which would allow unabated SO2 emissions to restore generating capacity. The campaign argues that this proposal poses grave risks to human health, potentially causing up to 1,362 air pollution-related deaths and R25 billion in societal costs over 36 months at high utilization. They challenge the claim that the bypass will restore 2,160 MW, noting the plant's historical 33% capacity performance. Instead of the bypass, the campaign proposes investing the funds into solar PV and wind installations to accelerate the coal phase-out.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, acting on behalf of the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA) and groundWork, has filed a formal appeal to the Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries against a decision to partially grant ArcelorMittal SA Vanderbijlpark Steel Works (AMSA) a postponement of compliance time-frames for Minimum Emission Standards (MES) under the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act 39 of 2004.

A letter from the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) to Tokiso Dispute Settlement (Pty) Ltd regarding the management of Multi-Stakeholder Reference Group (MSRG) and Implementation Task Team (ITT) meetings for air quality priority areas in South Africa.

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 document details the environmental failures of ArcelorMittal South Africa Ltd (AMSA) at its Vanderbijlpark facility, citing extensive air and water pollution, groundwater contamination, and a lack of transparency regarding climate risks. It highlights AMSA's status as one of South Africa's top 10 greenhouse gas emitters and its resistance to carbon taxes and air quality standards.

A formal submission by the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA) and groundWork (gW) objecting to ArcelorMittal South Africa's (AMSA) application for postponements and alternative emission standards at its Vanderbijlpark Works facility.

The document argues that AMSA's requests for emission standard postponements and alternative limits for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and hydrochloric acid (HCl) are unlawful and should be denied. The authors contend that the Vanderbijlpark Works is located in a non-compliant air quality priority area, that AMSA has failed to provide sufficient technical or economic justification for its requests, and that the company's history of non-compliance renders it unfit to receive such concessions.

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), representing several environmental justice organisations, submitted provisional comments on June 29, 2018, regarding the Department of Environmental Affairs' (DEA) proposed amendments to the 2012 National Framework for Air Quality Management in South Africa. The CER argues that the public consultation process was inadequate and that the draft Framework fails to address systemic failures in air quality monitoring, enforcement, and the achievement of previous targets.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, representing the Life After Coal/Impilo Ngaphandle Kwamalahle Campaign, submitted representations on June 25, 2018, regarding proposed amendments to the List of Activities resulting in atmospheric emissions. While supporting the elimination of 'rolling postponements' for minimum emission standards (MES), the submission argues for stricter requirements for once-off suspensions, greater transparency in application documents, and a more robust public participation process.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, on behalf of the Life After Coal/Impilo Ngaphandle Kwamalahle Campaign, supports the elimination of 'rolling postponements' for emission standards but argues that the draft legislation lacks sufficient safeguards. The submission recommends that postponement applications be contingent on ambient air quality compliance, require full public disclosure of decommissioning schedules, and mandate stricter emission standards for facilities seeking once-off suspensions, particularly in air quality priority areas.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, on behalf of the Life After Coal/Impilo Ngaphandle Kwamalahle Campaign, urges the Portfolio Committee on Energy to compel the Department of Energy to release key technical data and conduct fair public consultations before finalising the IRP Update and IEP. The submission highlights the Department's failure to respond to PAIA requests for modelling assumptions and tariff implications. It further argues that the current planning ignores the health and water costs of coal, the emissions of nitrous oxide from CFB technology, and the financial viability of new coal and nuclear plants. Citing studies by Meridian Economics and the Frankfurt Institute, the document asserts that accelerating the decommissioning of older coal stations and prioritising wind and solar PV is the most cost-effective path for South Africa's energy future.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) criticises the draft 2017 National Framework for Air Quality Management for failing to review progress against previous targets and for inadequate public participation. The submissions highlight persistent non-compliance with national ambient air quality standards in priority areas, severe delays in the implementation of the South African Air Quality Information System (SAAQIS), and deficiencies in greenhouse gas reporting. CER demands more transparent, facility-level GHG reporting, stricter air quality standards aligned with WHO guidelines, and the urgent appointment of air quality officers and inspectors to ensure enforcement of the Air Quality Act.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) argues that South Africa's draft Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) and Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Update are inconsistent with the Constitution, the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), and the National Energy Act (NEA). The CER contends that the plans unjustifiably constrain renewable energy while promoting new coal-fired power stations, which they claim cause severe health impacts and contribute to climate change. They highlight that coal-fired power is no longer the least-cost option and risks creating stranded assets. The document recommends removing build limits on wind and solar, excluding new coal and nuclear power, and conducting a comprehensive assessment of external social and environmental costs.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, representing several environmental justice organisations and community groups, submitted comments to the Department of Environmental Affairs regarding the declaration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) as priority air pollutants. The submission specifically argues that natural ecosystems should be excluded from the requirement to submit pollution prevention plans.

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 comments on August 23, 2013, regarding uMoya-NILU Consulting's Plan of Study (PoS). The PoS was designed to support Eskom's applications for exemptions and postponements of Minimum Emission Standards (MES) for its power stations. The CER argues that the PoS is too narrow in scope, fails to include critical pollutants like PM2.5, uses inappropriate modelling software for near-field impacts, and lacks a mechanism to verify model outputs against real-world ambient measurements.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing groundWork, the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA), and the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA), submitted comments on 16 April 2013 regarding the draft 2012 National Framework for Air Quality Management in South Africa. The CER argues that the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) failed to follow prescribed review processes, ignored legislative obligations from the 2007 Framework, and provided insufficient support to municipalities for air quality management.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, acting on behalf of groundWork, the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA), and the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA), submitted comments on 5 February 2013 regarding the draft National Dust Control Regulations published on 7 December 2012 under the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 (AQA). The submission argues for stronger protections for vulnerable populations, more rigorous monitoring standards, and the inclusion of government entities in enforcement.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing groundWork, the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA), and the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA), submitted comments on August 22, 2012, regarding the review of the National Framework for Air Quality Management. The submission criticizes the lack of a systematic review of the 2007 Framework, the absence of a current State of the Air Report, and significant gaps in air quality monitoring and public access to information. The CER advocates for more stringent emission standards, mandatory reporting for data holders, and a more inclusive, transparent review process.