SA climate targets: Are we responsive to the economic imperatives and constitutional rights?

We are heating the planet at unnatural rates by emitting excess greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This arises from burning fossil fuels to make electricity, transport people and goods, and other energy needs. Other significant emissions come from food production, waste generation, and the destruction of ecosystems, all of which store carbon in their stable states. 

Thankfully, these days there is a dwindling number of voices denying the existence of human caused global warming, or on the urgent need to transition to a low carbon economy and society. The big questions and debates now centre around the Who, How and When of taking decisive action. 

One such set of debates is happening right now, as South Africa readies itself to update its second Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). The obligation to submit an NDC arises from the Paris Agreement which South Africa became a party to in 2015, along with around 195 other nations and blocs. The global climate treaty compels parties to submit climate action plans which include targets for emissions reductions. Each party decides what its target will be, but to be fully legitimate it must quantify reductions towards the attainment of the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming of 1.5°C over pre-industrial levels.

The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) is responsible for formulating the NDC, a draft of which is subject to public participation and the final version of which must be approved by the Cabinet. Such a draft was released at the end of July, including targets for the reduction of GHG emissions. The draft targets elicited support from some quarters, and concern and even condemnation from others.

The Presidential Climate Commission (PCC) is a multi-stakeholder forum to advise government on ensuring an effective climate change response and achieving just transition became highly active in the NDC process in late 2024, convening a number of stakeholder dialogues to explain the technicalities and considerations involved, as well as start eliciting a diverse range of views. In June, the PCC released its draft recommendation, inviting public comment and dialogue and through numerous commission meetings,  seeking a consensus view to communicate to government. This was unprecedented since the establishment of the commission in 2020.

At the risk of over-simplifying a complex process attracting highly diverse views, there has been a reasonable level of consensus around many of the proposed plans and measures in both the DFFE and the PCC’s draft NDC. The intractable impasse that has emerged, quite unsurprisingly, relates to the GHG emissions reduction target for the 2031 to 2035 period, which is being tabled for the first time. The target that would be binding if as per the DFFE draft would be 380 Mt CO2e (megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) in contrast the PCC’s June draft NDC target of 320 Mt CO2e. 

The fears, concerns, logic, values and principles raised to motivate for either of these targets are predictable, understandable and serve as the reflection of debates in South Africa, and indeed globally, on the pace and scale of decarbonisation. 

Those supporting the DFFE’s weaker target argue for a cautious stance, emphasising the risks of committing to targets that cannot realistically be delivered within the current state of South Africa’s development context and fears that this would simply create economic disruption if not supported by strong enabled and enabling government measures.

Supporters of higher ambition as in the PCC June draft argue that a more ambitious target would provide a clear investment signal, strengthen international credibility, and catalyse access to climate finance and green technology partnerships, including opportunities for green industrialisation, particularly in renewable energy. An ambitious target is seen as essential to avoid locking in outdated energy infrastructure, which would otherwise increase transition costs over time. Stronger ambition also advances safety for people and planet through protection of scarce water resources and reduced air pollution which has resulted in an expensive and devastating health crisis.      

The consensus, which must be hailed, remains minimising negative economic impacts, preventing destruction and loss of lives, ensuring energy security and protecting livelihoods. 

The law and protecting  the right for future generations to a better world obliges us to  use the best available science to make climate response decisions.  PCC's draft recommendation is based on extensive evidence and a range of studies that weigh up not only the climate science but also the socio-economic impacts of various reduction targets. The divergence is around whether these needs are better met through stronger ambition, or by delaying emissions reduction

The mechanics of the climate crisis are simple, underpinned by a logical science, and yet the DFFE’s recommended target is not supported by any such science, and therefore makes the final target a political one. However, failure by the ultimate decision-makers to be suitably and realistically ambitious is going to take us down a path of intensifying hardships, which rapidly become unfixable.   

Brandon Abdinor is a commissioner at the Presidential Climate Commission and Senior Climate Advocacy Lawyer at the Centre for Environmental Rights NPC

*** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL.

BUSINESS REPORT