Search Climate Insights Directory

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) criticizes the 2024 South African National Budget for prioritizing debt stabilization and budget cuts over essential public services and economic growth. The IEJ highlights a projected 23% decrease in real non-interest expenditure per capita by 2026/27 and argues that the government is ignoring viable revenue sources, such as wealth and financial transaction taxes. The statement notes that social grants, including the SRD grant, are failing to keep pace with inflation and that spending on healthcare, education, and economic drivers is declining. Furthermore, the IEJ warns against the government's heavy reliance on Private-Public Partnerships for infrastructure and electricity, citing increased fiscal risks and potential environmental damage.

This research paper examines the governance of Lephalale, a mining town in South Africa's Limpopo province, focusing on the intersection of local government, spatial planning, and mining companies. It argues that the Medupi power station project failed to bridge apartheid-era spatial divides due to the Lephalale Local Municipality's lack of institutional capacity and its heavy dependence on private interests, specifically the multinational corporation Exxaro.

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 Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), representing the Life After Coal/Impilo Ngaphandle Kwamalahle Campaign, submitted a formal statement to the Portfolio Committee on Energy on 29 November 2017. The document outlines critical concerns regarding the lack of transparency, inadequate public consultation, and the omission of key economic and environmental data in the development of South Africa's draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for Electricity Update and the draft Integrated Energy Plan (IEP).

This report documents the responses of Thabametsi Power Company to objections raised by Earthlife Africa and Greenpeace Africa regarding the project's climate change and palaeontological impact assessments. Key points of contention include the project's high GHG emission intensity (1.23 tCO2e/MWh), the failure to quantify the social cost of carbon, and the high risk of water scarcity in the Lephalale region of Limpopo Province. The developer maintains that the project is consistent with South African national energy policy (IRP 2010 and 2016) and that its water needs for Phase 1 are secured through existing allocations from the MCWAP-1 scheme.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, acting for Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, submitted comments on the draft Climate Change Impact Assessment (CCIA) and Palaeontological Impact Assessment (PIA) for the proposed Thabametsi coal-fired power station. The submission argues that the draft CCIA significantly underestimates greenhouse gas emissions, ignores the social cost of carbon, and fails to adequately address severe water scarcity risks in the Lephalale area. The authors contend that the project is not in the national interest due to existing excess energy capacity and that the most appropriate recommendation is a 'no go option' to avoid irreversible environmental and social harm.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, acting for Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, submitted formal objections on 20 January 2017 to the Integrated Water Use Licence Application (IWULA) for the proposed 1200MW coal-fired Thabametsi power station near Lephalale, Limpopo. The submission argues that the application is fatally flawed due to outdated data, failure to account for climate change, risks to groundwater and wetlands, and a lack of guaranteed water availability for the project's 40-year lifespan.

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.

This document is a responding statement submitted by Newshelf 1282 (Pty) Ltd (the Second Respondent) on behalf of the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg (the Appellant). It addresses an appeal against the environmental authorisation (EA) granted by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) for the construction of the 1200MW coal-fired Thabametsi power station.

This document is a legal response submitted by NN Attorneys on behalf of Newshelf (the Second Respondent) on 10 June 2015, addressing an appeal against the Environmental Authorisation (EA) granted for the Thabametsi coal-fired power station project in South Africa. The response defends the project's compliance with the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and other regulations, arguing that the project is essential for national base-load energy security and that its environmental and health impacts have been sufficiently assessed and mitigated.

This document is a legal application by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) to be admitted as amicus curiae in a High Court case between the City of Cape Town, the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA), and the Minister of Energy. The CER seeks to provide expert legal and technical submissions on the Constitutional obligations of the state and local government to protect the environment and promote a transition from coal-fired power to renewable energy. The application includes supporting affidavits and several annexed reports detailing the health, environmental, and economic impacts of coal-fired electricity generation in South Africa, as well as the feasibility of a low-carbon energy transition.

This document is a legal statement from the Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (representing the National Department) responding to an application by several parties regarding air quality management in the Highveld Priority Area (HPA). The Minister defends the implementation of the Highveld Plan, arguing that the government has substantially complied with its goals through a co-operative governance model involving national, provincial, and municipal spheres, as well as private industry. The statement rejects the demand for additional regulations under section 20 of the Air Quality Act, asserting that existing tools and the progressive realization of environmental rights are sufficient. It also details the Minister's refusal to grant emission exemptions to Eskom and Sasol.

This statement, submitted by Earthlife Africa, argues that the environmental authorisation for the Thabametsi coal-fired power station was granted unlawfully because it lacked a necessary climate change impact assessment. The document outlines the specific requirements for such an assessment and presents four legal grounds for reviewing and setting aside the decisions made by the Chief Director and the Minister, citing breaches of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and the 2010 EIA Regulations.

This document is a response from Eskom to a request for information by the Centre for Environmental Rights. It reveals that Eskom does not have standalone decommissioning or emission reduction plans for its coal stations, but instead manages these through broader air quality strategies. A 2010 strategy included in the text outlines a prioritised approach to meeting Minimum Emission Standards, highlighting significant constraints such as water scarcity in the Highveld and the high cost of retrofits (estimated at R28 billion CAPEX in 2009 terms), while suggesting 'offset projects' as a cheaper alternative to technical upgrades.

This document is an excerpt from Eskom's Air Quality Strategy, detailing technical and financial plans for retrofitting power stations to meet Minimum Emission Standards, the potential for air quality offset projects, and the integration of water, coal quality, and climate change strategies.

This document is an excerpt from Eskom's Air Quality Strategy (Unique Identifier: 32-1143), detailing the company's approach to ambient air quality monitoring, atmospheric dispersion modelling, stakeholder engagement, and research. It outlines specific emission targets for existing power stations, a retrofit plan to meet Minimum Emission Standards, and a strategy for coal beneficiation to reduce emissions.

The Eskom Air Quality Strategy (April 2020) outlines a phased approach to reducing atmospheric emissions from its power stations to comply with South African legislation and maintain its licence to operate. The strategy focuses on particulate matter (PM), sulphur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and mercury, utilizing a combination of operational improvements, emission abatement retrofits, and air quality offsets.

This document is an excerpt from the Eskom Air Quality Strategy, detailing the company's efforts, challenges, and strategic plans to reduce particulate and gaseous emissions from its coal-fired power stations to comply with South African air quality legislation and Minimum Emission Standards.

The Eskom Air Quality Improvement Plan (Unique Identifier: 32-1143, Revision 1) outlines a strategy to reduce particulate matter (PM), sulphur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and mercury emissions from Eskom's power stations to comply with South African air quality legislation and maintain its 'licence to operate'. Approved by the Board Social Ethics and Sustainability Committee on 9 September 2016, the plan focuses on operational improvements, emission abatement retrofits, air quality offsets, and legal applications for leniency regarding Minimum Emission Standards (MES).