Has mitigation in South Africa mainstreamed?

Over the past month I’ve been immersed in studies, workshops and initiatives focusing on South Africa’s power sector transition. Having largely removed myself from the ‘real’ world 18 months ago to get the PhD finished, I have revelled in this fast track catch up – but with a growing sense that reality has fundamentally shifted in my absence.

This sense is driven by changes in two areas. First is recent modelling of the South African electricity sector: In response to the government’s 2016 draft Integrated Resource Plan (an IRP is the tool used for planning pathways for the electricity system), the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) did some modelling of their own. This modelling reveals that, as opposed to the the government’s IRP, a power sector plan that optimises for least cost will build far greater amounts of renewable energy – more than 70% by 2050. Renewable energy is simply the most cost efficient option for electricity generation now. The CSIR’s low cost plan also emits fewer carbon emissions and creates more employment than the government’s IRP, placing the least cost plan well within South Africa’s ‘Peak, Plateau and Decline’ climate mitigation policy range.

Second, is what is occurring in the world of information technology. Blockchain, Artificial Intelligence, the Internet of Things, the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the proliferation of internet and GPS based applications are radically changing our societies and systems.   These changes fundamentally support connectivity and innovation, and have the potential to drive energy and resource efficiencies at an unprecedented pace (I’m thinking off-grid electricity technologies, electric vehicles that feed power back to the grid overnight, and drone delivery services for starters).

AI revolution

The extent of these changes were not part of our conceptual landscape at the turn of the century. Taken in combination and with an appreciation for the acceleration in the underlying rate of change, it appears that market price and technology might just do it – ‘tip’ our systems from high to low carbon within the timeframes that climate science suggests is needed.

As someone who has just written a doctorate revealing and questioning the finance and technology focus of the climate mitigation community of practice, this conclusion is a little uncomfortable to say the least!   Am I being seduced by the thinking I worked so hard in my thesis to critique now that I’m back in the ‘real world’? Or were the technology advocates right all along?

I’m interested in hearing what others are thinking about this.

But there is more. Assuming our systems have ‘tipped’ in favor of low carbon, what of ‘development’? The climate mitigation community of practice in South Africa has consistently emphasised our development context as inseparable from the country’s mitigation agenda . Will these advances in RE and IT support development?  Or will they give even greater power to the forms of capitalism that drive inequality, unacceptable in any view of ‘development’?

It seems likely to me that it will be the latter. And if so, what is the nature of South African climate mitigation work, with its twin ‘development’ and ‘mitigation’ objectives going forward?  Does this mean it will be far more about development, poverty, inequality and justice than climate mitigation?

If so, my question would be: What can we as climate mitigation practitioners bring to such an age-old agenda?

3 thoughts on “Has mitigation in South Africa mainstreamed?

  1. I think your last point is the critical one – even if the technologists are right, how do they propose to address development? John Maytham interviewed a gerontologist recently which caused a stir, about people living to 200. However I found his answers about overpopulation and climate change poor in the extreme.


  2. I think the technology is on it’s way, however I’m concerned the vested interests will get in its way – just look at the coal IPPs. While the tech sstems and financial arguments might have tipped, our political and economic systems have a LONG way to go.

    What about ITs contribution to mitigation? Are you thinking smart grids here? Or a quicker move to electric transport based on RE?

    With regards to development, the need for a just transition is big and it will be a huge battle to make sure it happens. Capitalism is entrenched and even with RE being so suited to locally owned and distributed generation, it will be a mission to make sure we don’t just end up with corporate owned RE power utilities. I know you know this, but it is SO hard to think about this stuff – we’re pushing as hard as we can to stop climate change, to try and create a fairer economic system at the same time seems like a mountain too high sometimes. Reminds me of the classic slogan: System change not climate change. Phew.

    In answer to your question, what is a climate mitigation practitioner? Whatever your answer may be, I think there is more than enough work out there to do!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Thanks for your thought-provoking post. Interesting how this offers another perspective from your previous post https://emilytyler.co.za/2017/07/31/a-response-to-last-mondays-presentation-at-uct-of-the-oecd-report-investing-in-climate-investing-in-growth/#comments

    Maybe the technologists are right, only time will tell. But I am sceptical, given the evidence we have before us. I read this useful article about the flawed nature of the techno-economic scenarios we are so attached to as a mitigation community http://issues.org/34-4/opening-up-the-climate-policy-envelope/, this would suggest, they are a problematic measure against which to understand progress. Hypothetical progress, isn’t the same as progress in the real world and our experience in the real world suggests the limitations of the overemphasis on the techno-economics of low carbon transitions. We only need to see the struggles in Germany, to continue to increase RE penetration rates above 30%, and the refusal of emissions to decline despite increasing RE. And the stalling of the REIPPPP in SA. These and others would suggest the really difficult parts of a transition are still to come.

    From my perspective, I think we need to be looking at the nuts and bolts of our mitigation response as a measure of progress. How effective will the reporting regulations, carbon tax, carbon budgets climate change act be? And is the necessary institutional support to give this response some teeth actually being established? And for development, inequality and justice, how do our climate policy processes represent the majority of our population? As the climate community, we talk about the need for mitigation and development to be approached together, but is there a constituency supporting this objective? Outside our niche community, there seems to be limited support from labour, government (outside DEA), big business or the general public for a fundamental transition. How can we as a mitigation community, create a more expansive conversation and community, that is better equipped to drive the change that our models say is possible?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s