JAMES REELER: Physics is not open to political persuasion

Saying “I understand that we need to reduce carbon emissions but...” is akin to the classic “I’m not a racist, but...". When followed by something that undermines the preface, like increasing carbon emissions, it’s unconvincing and illustrates that the speaker does not adequately grasp the concept at hand. 

Climate change is an existential threat to modern civilisation, which means curbing carbon dioxide emissions, and therefore fossil fuel combustion, is a prerequisite for achieving national developmental goals.

The step-change in global temperature increases this year has climatologists alarmed. For three months we’ve bumped past the much-touted 1.5°C temperature increase limit, and while this is not nearly the 1.5º-2°C world scientists speak of, 2023’s chaotic and dangerous weather gives us just a taste of what is to come.

Yet, as was evidenced during the recent Africa Oil & Gas Week in Cape Town, there seems to be little understanding that physics is not open to political persuasion and the enemy here is not those seeking to hold our government to account. 

The oft-cited criticism that we cannot shift to renewable power overnight is absolutely true, but this is more a reason to start making that change immediately rather than suggesting we should not start at all. The longer we take, and the slower we go, the closer we will get to the point where we will have no choice but to do it overnight ... which will indeed have dire consequences for humanity.

Government’s push to unleash oil and gas utilisation, and reliance on the convenient lie of “clean coal”, might be justified by the undeniably urgent need to address the unemployment crisis and inequality in the country — if you assume this is the only and best option for achieving it. But it is not. 

The Karpowership saga has been plagued and serially overturned by inadequate community consultation and tick-box exercises. Yes, Shell left after losing a much-vaunted court case that overturned its exploration rights on the Wild Coast, but only because the assignment of the right was unlawful. There was no meaningful consultation with affected people, and no real consideration of the effects, including the climate impacts of exploiting any discovered fossil resource.

In a recent judgment allowing TotalEnergies to pursue exploration of blocks 5/6/7 offshore, environment minister Barbara Creecy stated that because the Wild Coast ruling was under appeal she would exclude the judgment, and that it was not necessary to consider the climate impacts of discoveries. Yet at the same time the potential of such discoveries was used as justification for the exploration.

So, to development. Exploitation of SA’s fossil fuels undeniably has the potential to provide royalties and taxes to the fiscus, which if smartly invested could indeed return dividends for the population. The jobs in the upstream market would likely be limited, but the energy could help revitalise the economy. It seems an attractive option.

However, should global gas demand shrink over the period in which it is being produced (a near-certainty given that 89 countries have already committed to reaching net zero emissions and only 47 have not yet proposed it), then those dividends are at risk. Rystad Energy estimates that SA oil and gas has among the world’s highest risk to return ratio in a global low-emissions scenario, with net government revenue from the resources turning negative and 45% of all capital expenditure at risk.

SA will still have to pay international rates to access these resources once they’re in the hands of the oil majors, so using our own supply won’t reduce the risk of price volatility. Government must essentially underwrite exploitation of the resource by committing to buy a large amount at any price for our electricity grid — not necessarily a great means of economic empowerment. 

On the other hand, developing a climate-smart economy powered by modern energy technologies also provides opportunities for royalties through the exploitation of SA’s critical minerals. The energy will work just as well for economic revitalisation. Moreover, it presents huge opportunities for developing a real circular economy, for the uplifting of new industries, and for revitalising the production landscapes damaged by our century-long rapacious appetite for coal.

Moreover, as one of the most carbon-intense economies in the world, and one that is heavily dependent on exports, SA is particularly vulnerable to carbon border adjustments. Every trading partner that invests in decarbonising their own economy is likely to impose these, as the EU has already begun to do. The only way to avoid them is to have an equivalent carbon tax rate with no rebates (currently roughly €89 or R1,780 a tonne) or to decarbonise the economy.

Either of these options will leave minimal room for extended consumption of fossil fuels. Globally, renewable energy provides many more jobs per unit of energy it produces, which can only be a good thing for a country that needs both more energy and more jobs at low cost. 

And finally, renewable energy is cheaper than the alternatives. We need to invest in a stronger and smarter grid to take advantage of this, but unless government actually bans solar and batteries, the economics means private households, companies and all manner of behind-the-meter installations will go renewable anyway.

As electric vehicles gain traction this trend will increase, eating at revenues of both municipalities and the electricity utility and driving up the overall price of energy for low-income households that can’t afford the option. There will still be a transition, but with no justice to it.

On the other hand, if government embraces the transition through good planning, load balancing, upstream renewable development and a rapid trajectory to decarbonisation in the energy sector, capitalising on the opportunities of the transition can help SA become a fairer and more resilient nation. Essentially, if the rest of the world decarbonises and SA doesn’t, we lose in all sorts of ways.

Conversely, if we decarbonise and the rest of the world doesn’t, we come out on top, with better employment, adequate energy and a revitalised economy. And if everyone decarbonises it will be even cheaper for us to achieve our goals, since enormous global investment in renewable and storage technologies will continue to drive prices downward everywhere. 

The critique that opposition to new fossil fuels is anti-development and driven by sinister foreign agendas therefore flies strongly in the face of the evidence. Active citizenry trying to ensure government doesn’t condemn current and future generations to poverty and increased climate chaos, and that pushes for responsible and smart investment in a better economic future, is exactly what is needed.

Those advocating for a rapid just transition are not devious fifthcolumnists set on undermining the country — they are honest folk taking on board the overwhelming evidence of climate science and lobbying for a cleaner, more equitable future for our nation. 

The history of fossil fuel development in Africa is clear: doubling down on antique, polluting and dangerous energy sources like coal, oil and gas may line the pockets of the international companies and elites that extract and move them, but the return for citizens is typically minimal.

Even if you don’t understand that we need to reduce emissions, it’s hard to see how there could be a “but” that justifies increasing our investment in fossil fuels in the 21st century. 

• Reeler is senior manager: climate action at WWF SA.