Just three listed companies — Sasol, BHP Billiton, and Anglo American — were responsible for 83% of disclosed emissions from JSE Top 40 companies. But the state-owned Eskom, an unlisted company, was the biggest single polluter, according to a survey on carbon emissions.
Eighty percent of South Africa’s top companies are invested in sectors considered high impact for climate change, and the heaviest polluters are listed as socially responsible companies by the JSE.
Leading South African companies with dual listings are all invested in high-impact sectors. This is according to the first report South Africa has submitted to the Carbon Disclosure Project, a global initiative which aims to raise awareness of the impact of climate change. Locally, Top 40 companies were invited to participate, with 74% responding, along with Eskom.
Though Sasol is the Top 40 company with the highest carbon emissions, Eskom emits 2,8 times Sasol’s amount. Sasol emitted 71-million tons in methane and carbon dioxide this year, a slight decline from 2006, when it emitted 73-million tons.
Eskom emitted 208-million tons last year — about 40% of South Africa’s total emissions of 440-million tons in 2003, the year used as the baseline for government’s climate change discussions, said Peet du Plooy, the World Wildlife Fund’s trade and investment adviser for South Africa.
Du Plooy applauded Eskom’s willingness to participate — as the parastatal would not normally be targeted — but said the bad news was that it could be the top emissions-producing company in the entire global survey.
The nine largest emitters — Sasol, BHP Billiton, Anglo American, Sappi, Anglo Platinum, Harmony Gold, AngloGold Ashanti, Impala Platinum and SABMiller — are all listed on the JSE’s Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) Index, which includes companies with good “triple bottom line” performance — environmental, social and governance criteria.
The JSE previously came in for criticism for its inclusion of Iscor, whose Vanderbijlpark refinery is a notorious polluter. Now in its present incarnation as Mittal Steel SA, it is still listed on the SRI, despite being raided by the Green Scorpions earlier this year.
According to the report, there is a disconnect between awareness of climate change and action on the issue. “While most of the company disclosures show a good level of understanding and awareness on climate change impacts, this is rarely translated into action.
“Although 61% of the FTSE/JSE Top 40 responding companies have allocated board level or upper-management responsibility for climate change related issues, only seven companies have disclosed clear, company-wide emissions management targets,” the project coordinators said in a press release.
Only 57% of responding companies were able to provide quantitative data on their greenhouse gas emissions. Of those who did, companies reporting high emissions seemed more likely to have climate change strategies in place.
Du Plooy said South Africa needed to diversify its economy in order to be less exposed to risk and to take advantage of opportunities climate change offered. The market for environmental goods and services is growing at 45% a year, he said, and is projected to be worth $688-billion in 2010. “By solving this problem, we can make money,” he said.
Sasol, a relatively small energy company, still managed to produce two-thirds of Shell’s emissions of 105-million tons. “That’s because its process is 60% more energy intensive,” said Du Plooy.
But despite their high levels of emissions, Eskom and Sasol say they are committed to reducing their carbon footprints. Both also have representatives on the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change.
Eskom — whose chairperson Valli Moosa is a previous minister for environmental affairs and tourism — says that climate change criteria are part of its decision-making. It will also reduce coal’s contribution to the primary energy mix by 10% by 2012.
The parastatal contributes to a host of national and international bodies on climate change and benchmarks itself against the JSE’s SRI criteria. Had it been eligible — the index is only open to listed companies — it says it would have been included, and would have been one of the top performers for environmental impact. Yet Eskom’s Medupi power station, which is currently under construction, does not include clean air technology. To pay for its expansion plans, Eskom wants the national energy regulator, Nersa, to approve an 18% tariff increase. Nersa argues that this would punish poorer households, but recognises that the low price of coal did not promote energy efficiency.
“While we accept that Eskom is high on the [carbon dioxide] emission list, the absolute emissions per utility is quoted without reference to the size of the utility or the available resources in the country … Clearly, Eskom’s emissions profile is far from ideal but we have to balance our obligation to provide electricity to meet the country’s immediate needs without compromising the needs of future generations. We are on the path towards sustainable energy production,” Eskom said in response.
On Monday, at the launch of its 2007 sustainability report, Sasol said it had a long-term environmental roadmap in place. According to its environmental expert Fred Goede, Sasol has been tracking its emissions for the past 11 years and aims to cut its emissions by 10% per ton of product produced. Climate change has been identified as one of its main sustainability challenges, along with safety, skills development and BEE.
Goede said Sasol was investigating energy efficiency, carbon capture and storage, and renewable energy such as biofuels, and had met with outside experts on climate change.
Illtud Harri of BHP Billiton said the company had recently launched a revised climate change policy and was working on energy efficiency and low carbon energy.