Climate resolution

Eskom and Energy

Can South Africans make a democratic decision about our future energy production and will we move to a more sustainable path for the future of our children?  These are questions being asked by SA Faith Communities Environment Institute (SAFCEI).

With the steep rise in electricity tariffs, the CEO of Eskom, Jacob Maroga, said on SABC TV that he wanted to enter into a debate about funding for Eskom. He did not, however, spell out or even mention what Eskom wants to spend R385 billion on.

SAFCEI would suggest that the citizens and taxpayers of South Africa want him to enter into debate on what he wants Eskom to invest in and how he wants to generate our electricity.  Following the decision of the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) to allow Eskom to increase the electricity price by 31.3% and, even more significant in the long term, to authorise a feed-in tariff for independent power producers (IPPs), there is more reason than ever that we have a say in how our energy is generated.  With the climate change talks coming up in December in Copenhagen, we are at a decisive turning point in the history of humanity and the planet.

The simple fact is that we need to stop burning fossil fuels if we want a sustainable world for our children. Yet we hear Eskom’s plan is to build at least two new coal power stations, with a possible third and fourth plant, and 20,000 mega watts of nuclear generation on the drawing board. The investments we make now will commit us for the next fifty to sixty years. Is this what we, the public and consumers, want?  Can we afford to invest in 60 years of pollution?

Certainly coal and oil are wonderful sources of energy, but our use of them is threatening the very survival of our planet, and we now have viable renewable energy alternatives – in abundance – which will not only lead to a healthy planet, but will also produce many more jobs.

What is to happen following the UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen in December when South Africa might well be penalized for our excessive carbon emissions, never mind the damage we will cause to the planet as we continue to pollute our atmosphere with our cheap and dirty coal?

We believe that it is not only irresponsible but immoral to continue burning coal.

The health of the planet is the priority for our survival, yet you would be forgiven if you thought Eskom had never heard of climate change.  Consider the following headlines in Business Report:

“Coal mining needs R150bn capital. Eskom to spend R100bn in 40 mines to boost production.  Eskom plans to build two more coal-fired power stations, in addition to the Medupi station in Limpopo and the Kusile station in Mpumalanga….to make up for its cancelled nuclear programme…..AngloCoal plans to increase its local output to 90 million tons a year by 2017, from about 60 million tons in 2007” (6 Feb. 2009).

“Exxaro Resources yesterday put a value of more than R353bn on the power station and coal mine investment that the company, Eskom and IPPs could make in the Waterberg by as early 2018.” (5 Dec 2008).

Is Eskom and the coal industry totally disconnected from reality?  We have got to reduce  CO2  emissions. That means we must reduce the mining and burning of coal, but not only because of CO2 emissions.  Our increasingly scarce water resources will be disastrously polluted if coal mining continues apace in Mpumalanga. It is reported that there were 622 coal prospecting applications last year.  If granted, Mpumalanga will be turned into a giant coal-dust bowl and any hope of rescuing our already polluted water resources will be destroyed.

Nuclear is not a realistic alternative. It is neither clean nor renewable. The pro-nuclear lobby seldom calculate the CO2 emissions for  the mining of uranium and the construction of a nuclear power station, let alone the decommissioning of such stations at the end of their short 40-year lifespan. Koeberg boasts that: “Forty thousand tons of reinforced steel and 300 000 cubic metres of cement were used in the construction.”  How much CO2 was emitted?

It will take at least ten years to get a nuclear power station operating.  Uranium is a finite resource and as it gets scarcer, the costs of extraction will increase. Can we afford this when cheaper renewable alternatives are available?

Yet it seems that Eskom sees no way of generating power other than from coal and nuclear.  We, from a faith perspective, say this is totally unacceptable.  When will Eskom see the light and enter the solar age!

God has endowed us in South Africa with unlimited renewable energy, which we could start tapping within two years (not ten for fossil fuels). We have some of the best energy resources in the world from sun and wind and we hear of the development of the Grand Inga Falls on the Congo River, which could generate 40 000 MW, more than our present energy needs.

We read of a private wind company that plans to build a 125 wind turbine wind farm in the Western Cape, but it is not Eskom.  We hear Eskom is to build one pilot concentrated solar power (CSP) of 100 MW, when world-wide global power capacity from renewable energy sources (excluding large hydro) reached 280 000 MW in 2008. (see www.ren21.net).

Why don’t we turn to renewable energy when we have such abundant sun, wind and hydro resources available?  Why does Eskom persist with its coal and nuclear power stations which will take eight or ten years to build when it is now technologically possible to generate base load electricity from CSP and thermal batteries? (We could also save 5 000MW with solar water heaters.) (Business Report 21 July).

Is it that we humans are being indescribably stupid? Or is it that the power and wealth of the fossil fuel industry is so strong that we succumb to its pressure?

We are not that stupid, so are we being held hostage to the fossil fuel industry, now with government’s complicity in weakening environmental regulations for mining?

This surely is the only answer to the extraordinary short sightedness we are showing.

The two obstacles to developing a clean energy future are our political will and the pressure and power of the fossil fuel industry.  At our recent election, we were involved in making political choices.  Now the most important decisions we have to make are about energy – either we are to be saddled with dirty coal generation for the next 60 years, or we leave a healthy planet for our children.

Either we make money for ourselves now, or we invest wisely in clean, renewable energy for a sustainable future for our children.  This will employ many more people and spread wealth instead of concentrating it in the hands of the wealthy few.

SAFCEI has a DVD showing our planet chocking under the burden and poison of coal-fired power stations, industry, millions of cars, destruction of forests, in contrast to a clean, green and blue and healthy planet with a thriving community of humans and land and sea plants and animals.

We, from the faith communities, know we must seek justice and righteousness for all – all people and all creation.  We know we are warned against the pursuit and worship of money.  We believe we have a responsibility, not only to God, but to future generations.

Unless we change direction, we shall bring about a future generation far more disadvantaged than the previously disadvantaged.  For this we will be severely judged by the next generation.

The Summit of religious leaders held in February this year called on the government to take concrete, measurable steps to reduce carbon emissions. They resolved that this means stopping the expansion of further coal and nuclear power generation, progressively moving away from fossil fuels and nuclear generation towards the increasing development of renewable energy, concentrating on solar and wind, as a matter of urgency.

We look to the government to ensure South Africa follows a green path, for a sustainable future for our children.

We also look to the South African Government to continue its leadership role both regionally and internationally at the UNFCCC in December in Copenhagen.  Specifically we call on government to set before the world community

• a CO2 emissions reduction target of 350 ppm. This means reducing our emissions from over 480 ppm.
• a developing country target that would ensure that emissions peak by 2015 and decline to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

We hope and pray that our government – and the governments of the world when they do meet in Copenhagen – recognise the urgency.  In this regard, we ask that our President, Jacob Zuma, attends the meeting in Copenhagen personally to ensure that he is present at what may be the most important treaty in the history of humankind.

If any would like to endorse the following resolution by way of encouraging the governments of the world to take meaningful action, please log on to: www.safcei.org.za.

As people of faith, we believe we have a responsibility to God and future generations to care for this planet – our home.  We therefore call on the governments of the world when they meet at the UNFCCC at Copenhagen in December this year to take urgent and meaningful action to stem climate change.

Following the latest scientific evidence we believe we cannot allow temperatures to rise by 2 degrees.  We therefore call for a reduction of CO2 emissions to a target of 350 ppm, ensuring that emissions will have peaked by 2015 in all countries, to then decline to at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

If there is insufficient action, it could be possible that in the future civil society institutes class action against power utilities for crimes against humanity – for we are dependent on the well-being of the planet, our only home.

As people of faith, we believe we have a responsibility to God and future generations to care for this planet – our home.  We therefore call on the governments of the world when they meet at the UNFCCC at Copenhagen in December this year to take urgent and meaningful action to stem climate change.

Following the latest scientific evidence we believe we cannot allow temperatures to rise by 2 degrees.  We therefore call for a reduction of CO2 emissions to a target of 350 ppm, ensuring that emissions will have peaked by 2015 in all countries, to then decline to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.