OPINION

JOHANNESBURG – Climate change is becoming a global issue that we cannot afford to ignore as it poses a significant threat to humanity. We therefore have a duty to take seriously the concerns raised by climate scientists and find sustainable ways to reduce carbon emissions. Although climate change is a global concern, it cannot be addressed globally. It can only be solved by local efforts.

And this is where things get complicated because each country has its own challenges and countries do not have the same historical carbon emissions profiles. To add to the complexity, countries and regions around the world are at varying stages of economic development – ​​a problem we ignore at our peril. South Africa, for example, faces an immediate threat of social instability due to rising unemployment and its despicable levels of racial inequality, both of which can be traced to decades of imperialism. and colonial rule in Africa, as well as post-1994 policies. In this context, we must respond to the Glasgow Climate Pact based on the foreseeable socio-economic implications for South Africa.

At COP26, nations adopted a Glasgow Climate Pact that commits the 2020s to be a decade of drastically reduced carbon emissions. The conference argued that the burning of fossil fuels, particularly coal, gas and oil, has contributed the most to the bulk of carbon emissions over the past century. COP26 affirmed that if we want to fight climate change, all countries must be prepared to make an effort to reduce emissions, even if this may pose economic difficulties.

What is worrying about this pact is that it significantly aimed at phasing out coal and conveniently omitted gas and oil. He further pushed for the apocalypse of coal mining and use in South Africa, India, China and other developing economies. These aforementioned measures were a direct attack on developing economies, as their energy stability is largely dependent on coal. Many critics said that while they accepted the need to tackle climate change, they were concerned about the geopolitics surrounding the pact and the socio-economic impact it could have on developing countries.

As controversial as it may be, we argue that in this case the principle of the prioritization paradox is the solution and that it should be applied. Developed economies must be pushed to focus on reducing carbon emissions in order to combat climate change. These nations can afford the economic hurdle that can result from such a transition. We strongly believe that these nations need to invest in renewable energy sources with the goal of phasing out gas, oil and coal. They must take into account that they are responsible for the climate crisis in which we find ourselves, because they are the biggest emitters of carbon. And they have developed their economies precisely by being carbon-intensive since the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-19th century. The holier-than-you-think posture they adopt at climate change summits is of no use.

Developing economies (including South Africa), on the other hand, must do everything in their power to eradicate poverty, inequality and unemployment. These are the immediate threats they face. Any program aimed at addressing climate change concerns must, of the utmost necessity, integrate solutions to these. It is right that these nations prioritize their development agenda. And, if poverty alleviation and job creation by providing sufficient base load for their economies involves dependence on coal, then we have to accept the situation. A viable alternative to coal must address these issues head-on, or risk not gaining sufficient social legitimacy to implement it at the national level, where it matters most.

Considering that developing economies such as South Africa are not as responsible as other countries for the current climate crisis, it is fair to say that they bear less responsibility for committing to resolutions taken in Glasgow. The United States, China, the United Kingdom, the European Union (EU) bloc of countries and other developed economies responsible for the current climate crisis must be forced to provide financial assistance to emerging markets in order to to stop the effects of the climate crisis. cash.

It is irrefutable that any program to recklessly phase out coal mining and use in South Africa does not appreciate the economic crisis in which we find ourselves. Our unemployment rate is 34.4%. If one includes those who have been so intimidated by the lack of employment that they have given up looking, total unemployment rises to 46.6% of the adult population. More than 10 million young South Africans are without jobs, education or training, and our constant power cuts have deeply threatened our rate of economic growth. At present, coal mines employ over 90,000 people. With the downstream industries it powers, including chemical manufacturing, power generation and logistics, the figure is in the hundreds of thousands of people in employment. This clearly shows that an uncalculated decision to exclude coal can lead to serious economic hardship and catastrophic social consequences for which developed countries and their non-governmental anti-coal activists will take no responsibility.

South Africa has 16 coal-fired power stations which account for 75% of the country’s electricity production. Destabilization of coal use will lead to blackouts that could cripple our economy and worsen our current conditions. Anti-coal rhetoric is already affecting investment in the coal sector, as all major banks have taken a negative view of coal. We need to learn from recent stages of load shedding that most economic activities are stopped when there is no electricity, which negatively affects the performance of our economy. We state this fact simply to emphasize that the country cannot afford to radically switch to renewable energy, because it would plunge us into a great tragedy.

We note with deep concern that despite significant technological advances, renewable energy storage remains expensive and inefficient. The EU is aware of this and has chosen to continue to use oil and gas as it moves towards a “green economy”. Battery storage seems unreliable and expensive, and when a large number of battery storage systems are connected to the grid, yields drop. Compared to huge, flexible coal- or natural-gas-fired power stations that are always available, run continuously, and can adjust power generation, the combination of battery and renewable energy power stations is a poor alternative to this stage. Developed economies have the luxury of experimenting with this alternative. They can also afford to subsidize the establishment of expensive renewable energy infrastructure.

We need to recognize that renewables have the potential to create new jobs and economic opportunities in South Africa, so there needs to be an incentive to create an environment where these two energy sources can co-exist. But to do so at scale, South Africa will need to attract investment in the manufacture of renewable machinery. For this, investors will need a reliable energy supply which, for the foreseeable future, can only be provided by coal. Although the EU’s decision to return to the use of fossil fuels for energy stability may sound alarm bells, we do not reject renewables as a complementary energy source. However, we reject the increasingly entrenched idea that they replace coal. The truth is that no country in the world uses renewable energy as a basic source of energy. The day this becomes possible will be the day the fundamentals of the economy throw the coal in the trash.

African tradition informs us that you don’t destroy what you have in the hope that something better will happen. You build for the future on what you know and what you have. South Africa has an abundance of unexplored coal deposits that could contribute significantly to the country’s economy in the future. In addition to this, the coal mining sector is the most transformed as it has created a lot of young black entrepreneurs owning mines, which reveals that the sector has contributed significantly to the country’s plan to build an inclusive economy based on the principle of non-racism – an important constitutional injunction that is also essential for political stability. We argue that any hasty transition, which aims to destroy coal-fired power plants, will not leave this transformation program unscathed.

South Africa accounts for less than 1% of greenhouse gas emissions. Our responsibility in the fight against climate change must be proportional to our contribution to the problem.

However, we must commit to extracting and using coal responsibly and investing in the development of green coal technologies that will allow us to burn coal much cleaner. Abandoning coal is not our priority because we have an economic crisis to stem. We must create jobs for our restless youth, reduce poverty, expand opportunities for our people and build an inclusive economy, which is why it is socially right for us to prioritize economic development in heartfelt appeals phasing out fossil fuels.

Mudzanani is the founding chairman of the South African Youth Economic Council; Bayoglu is the managing director of Menar.