RICHARD WORTHINGTON: Let’s make the Presidential Climate Commission extinction proof

Is there now a more democratic government process or forum to be found in SA than the Presidential Climate Commission (PCC)? This is not to suggest it is an exemplar of democratic practice or an adequate mechanism to drive the system change required to curtail climate change, but there is not much competition at present, and I do suggest it is an institution that merits supportive engagement and should not be allowed to slip away.

While not yet a statutory body — this is provided for in the Climate Change Bill, on which parliament is running a leisurely sequence of public hearings — in two years of operation it has facilitated a significant improvement in climate policy, most notably a meaningful mitigation objective and adoption of a credible (though not yet comprehensive) framework for a just transition in SA. The PCC is still somewhat experimental, supported by a secretariat that is exploring its potential with a modest budget and may now be facing its greatest challenge.

On April 14 the PCC convened a national colloquium, primarily to consider recommendations for the cabinet on our electricity system, prompted by mineral resources & energy minister Gwede Mantashe’s announcement that his department is undertaking an “update” of the Integrated Resource Plan. The president will convene the commission to finalise the recommendations.

SA published its first National Climate Change Response Strategy in 2003, which was really a discussion document laying out challenges, opportunities and some key choices that would need to be made in a coherent strategy. Those of us advocating a decisive shift towards renewable energy and sustainability were told to be patient, to provide for more research and analysis. Twenty years later, the government as a whole is still avoiding the uncomfortable choices.

The National Climate Change Response Policy adopted in 2011 mandates various desirable measures for driving both mitigation and adaptation, but did not sufficiently quantify the scale or pace of response to steer decision-making, like in energy planning. The government eventually decided that enabling legislation is required and the draft bill was published in June 2018.

Key beneficiaries of the incumbent energy system continue to insist that we should not “rush into” an energy transition; that prevarication is justified by the inadequate actions of the most responsible developed nations, or by the vulnerability of workers in our coal sector. What science clearly shows to be a collective imperative is treated as no more than a narrative serving foreign interests, or as somebody else’s problem, in a denial of responsibility and of agency.

No amount of public consultation will reconcile the competing narratives. These narratives have various permutations but may be broadly split between those with antipathy to disruption of the status quo or real ambition for any “green” agenda (often perceived as a northern or European imposition), and positive narratives that advocate rapid and/or radical change as our best available option, clearly beneficial for the majority in our country and region and future.

The reluctance to let go of fossil fuel investment prospects and the lure of resource “endowments” that can be easily appropriated, and to initiate a phase-out of established value chains (and associated patronage), must be overcome. That certainly is not going to be achieved by our sitting parliament — and the prospects are unlikely to change with next year’s election.

There is justifiable scepticism among civil society over the efficacy and even the intent or legitimacy of the PCC, but it has endeavoured to be transparent, accountable and broadly representative. It is only an advisory body, but has a respectable track record and is expanding recognition that indecision or avoidance are incompatible with advancing social justice, and most particularly intergenerational justice.

We need choices to be made based on science and the best available information and analysis that are produced in a transparent manner, available to all and open to question, and we have never had an official platform providing such an inclusive foundation until the PCC.

It may be naive to imagine such a commission could bring coherence to public policy and government behaviour regarding our energy development, with the governing party such a “broad church” of contending interests. But this is an institutional body that should at least provide some continuity in strengthening our response to planetary heating.

Whether or not we like all of the PCC’s recommendations, which we should see soon, or consider its composition to be adequate, if we want climate action we should support the commission’s efforts and use its outputs to challenge the cabinet for implementation.

• Worthington is project manager at the SA office of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. He writes in his personal capacity.