The migration to renewable energy is gaining momentum but there is a shortage of storage facilities. Photo: Dwayne Senior/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
South Africa appears to be discovering sources of energy, just as the clamour for migration to renewable energy is gaining momentum.
The global oil company, Total, has found gas in the area around Mossel Bay and could begin extraction fairly soon. In about 2010, another multinational oil company, Shell, stumbled upon possible gas and oil reserves along the Wild Coast.
While Total is in the early stage of public consultations, Shell’s efforts have ground to a halt. It got entangled in legal action that was instituted by various stakeholders. All this is happening within the context of the energy crisis, record unemployment and disastrous weather patterns that have wreaked havoc.
The ensuing debate has pitted the dire need to create opportunities for the multitudes of unemployed against protecting the environment to insulate ourselves, and the rest of humanity, against the vagaries of global warming. Which route to follow has become a pressing question that requires urgent resolution. It may well be that the manner in which the debate is framed has also created a false dichotomy. Could it be that we need not choose one option over the other, but simply pursue both these imperatives in a particular sequence?
It is easy to interpret the 2022 ruling against Shell, at Xolobeni, as a victory against exploration of mineral resources in favour of protecting marine life. A careful read of Judge Mfanelo Mbenenge’s judgment in the Eastern Cape high court is instructive on a number of issues that require consideration when contemplating extraction of mineral resources.
Essentially, the decision turned on the inadequacy of public consultations. Shell did have meetings with the various interest groups but that was simply to inform them of its plans. The discussions did not dwell much, if at all, on how the company would go about exploring these energy sources. This was the nub of the problem. The method of exploration, seismic survey, posed a potential danger to marine life, which is a source of livelihood for many in the neighbourhood, and also threatened to limit access to the sea itself.
The objection on economic grounds was not entirely surprising. The right to livelihood, especially from natural resources, is uncontested, particularly because of its moral persuasion. What was more enlightening about the judgment was its definition of the wholeness of human needs. Nourishment is not the only human want. People also have spiritual needs.
Some of the locals use the sea to perform cultural rituals. These rites are part of who they are, enable them to make sense of life and complete their sense of being. Whether someone else agrees with this way of life is immaterial. Individuals, the judge asserted, are entitled to their own beliefs and cultural practices. Their acceptance is not based on them being popular, but simply to enjoy inherent constitutional protection.
A large part of the reason for Shell’s legal loss was complacency. The executives at the company assumed that their worldview was universal. This self-centred conception of life was evident in how they did public consultations and communicated with the people living in the area. They used provincial, instead of community-based newspapers. Those newspapers are English or Afrikaans in a place that is predominantly Xhosa-speaking. They never used the popular radio station, Umhlobo Wenene, and thought posting information on their website was the best way of communicating with the largely rural community.
In other words, Shell suffered from a combination of prejudice and ignorance. This is what, one suspects, turned Mbenenge against the oil company. He became closed to any other argument that the company made to advance its cause.
Shell also did not put much effort to disprove the charge that their exploration methods were harmful to marine life. They simply made general assertions that their methods are known to be harmless and that there’s no evidence to the contrary. They wanted to be taken on their word, without providing evidence of their assertions. This bordered on arrogance.
My point, therefore, is that it is foolhardy to conclude that the Xolobeni case settled this ongoing debate in favour of the environment, against exploration of energy sources. Xolobeni did not provide ample opportunity to investigate the best methods of exploration with minimum harm to marine life. Settling this matter has become urgent, which stems partly from calls to close down coal mines, as we migrate towards increasing use of renewable energy.
Coal is South Africa’s major source of electricity. Carbon emissions from the burning of coal are a major cause of climate change. Part of the global community, South Africa too has committed to curbing emissions of the harmful fumes. It is also generally understood that the pace at which a country reduces its carbon footprint depends on the speed with which it secures alternative sources of energy. Electricity is central to livelihoods and quality of life.
Generating renewables into a major source of energy is a challenge that confronts most countries, even the ones with the most advanced technology. Germany provides the best example of this conundrum. Russia has cut gas supplies to the country. This is in retaliation to the sanctions that Germany, together with European countries, has imposed on Russia for its war in Ukraine. Cutting off gas supplies obviously creates all manner of difficulties for Germans. This inconvenience has, in turn, forced Germany to halt its march towards a carbon-free future, and return to coal.
The German government has even authorised the destruction of the village of Lutzerath to make way for a coal mine. Actually, coal is back in high demand. Europe is in a scramble for coal. South Africa has joined the frenzy to meet the sudden surge in demand. Coal mines are raking in huge profits from exports.
This is obviously an irony: South Africa is under pressure to shut down its coal mines, while Europe is opening up new mines and demanding South African coal. The coal exports have, at times, left South Africa with insufficient and poor-quality coal. This has, in turn, led to power outages disrupting both economic production and quality of life. Europe, on other hand, is spared all these inconveniences.
The conundrum that Europe faces, with all its glaring irony, simply means that countries migrate towards carbon-free production at the pace they can afford. A major determinant of that pace is the security of access to energy. Environmental protection is not pursued fanatically to the point of engendering the mere availability of energy. A shortage of electricity also breeds its own set of hazards to life.
It is inevitable, as the Germans show us, that priorities and the well-being of each country will ultimately determine migration towards a carbon-free future. This simple logic also applies to our own country. For a highly unequal country, which also needs to revitalise its manufacturing sector, South Africa requires guaranteed access to affordable electricity. So the issue here is not just about connecting renewables to the grid, but also has to do with whether it is affordable to keep the lights on and electrify the roughly 15% or so households that are still without electricity.
It goes without saying, therefore, that we should avoid the rush to close down coal mines without the certainty of constant and affordable supply of electricity. The loans that South Africa has reportedly been granted by international funders are commendable. But this is the kind of generosity that shouldn’t be accepted at face value. Governments are always interested in creating commercial centres for their multinationals. Commerce follows the flag. And international funders use loans to force sovereign states to make certain concessions against the well-being of their own people.
South Africa has long resisted loss of economic sovereignty. Once it is lost, we surrender our fate to the hands of others with little interest in our well-being. Migration to renewable energy is for the preservation of all of humanity. But we should guard against a route that makes us unequal in the carbon-free world. We can only avoid this unpalatable future if we navigate this march on our own terms.
[/membership]