The government’s new 2030-2035 pledge to protect the climate only commits to reducing the 2025-2030 target of 350-420 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide that can be emitted, to 320-380 metric tonnes to be emitted between 2030 and 2035.
Scientists from the Presidential Climate Commission, the body advising government on climate policy, have argued that the country should go further. In their analysis, South Africa could credibly aim to reduce its carbon emissions by around 25%-30% more between 2030 and 2035.
The Presidential Climate Commission’s targets were designed to enable the country to reach net zero by around 2050 or 2055. Net zero is the point at which greenhouse gases emitted by humans are at such a low level that nature is able to remove them. But currently, just over 74% of South Africa’s electricity still comes from burning coal. As a high emissions country, a 10% reduction in the greenhouse gases that are pumped into the atmosphere won’t be enough to allow South Africa to reach net zero by 2050.
There are drawbacks to not setting ambitious targets now. From our point of view as energy economists, we argue here that how ambitious or cautious the country is today will determine whether it captures the opportunities of a just transition or faces higher costs later.
Firstly, slow cuts now will make deeper reductions more expensive later because delaying action locks in coal infrastructure, increases cumulative emissions, and means steeper, costlier transitions will be needed in a shorter time to meet long-term climate goals.
Secondly, South Africa could also miss out on investment in the green transition, and on creating green jobs.
South Africa may be lowering its climate ambitions because it fears it won’t get the finance it needs to move away from coal (decarbonise). But this looks too conservative when momentum for global climate ambition is accelerating.
How and why governments have carbon targets
South Africa signed up to the global climate change treaty (the Paris Agreement) with 195 other countries in 2015. The Paris Agreement is a legally binding contract that commits countries to limiting the global temperature increase to as far below 2°C above pre-industrial levels as possible – and ideally to not more than 1.5°C above. (This is the point at which climate change becomes catastrophic and can’t be reversed.)
Every country in the Paris Agreement has to publish the amount of carbon they plan to emit from 2030 to 2035. This is part of each country’s climate action plan or Nationally Determined Contribution, which they commit to update every five years.
The nationally determined contributions for 2030-2035 must be approved by each country’s government and pledged at the 30th global annual climate change conference, COP30, in November this year.
The politics beneath the numbers
South Africa faces hard realities. Its climate ambitions (reducing greenhouse gas emissions and switching to renewable energy) are conditional on getting enough finance, technology and capacity. It can’t abandon coal and scale up renewables on its own.
South Africa’s new carbon targets emphasise that it can only cut its greenhouse gas emissions more if it secures international climate finance of about US$8 billion a year by 2030.
This aligns with South Africa’s Just Energy Transition policies, including the Just Energy Transition Investment Plan. These outline how much finance is needed to get renewable electricity, green hydrogen and electric vehicles off the ground. The new nationally determined contributions make it clear that aiming for more depends on South Africa being able to secure the financee these plans have already identified.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change also recognises that developing countries like South Africa can only act on climate change in line with their circumstances and resources.
However, South Africa’s approach also reveals an unwillingness to stretch its climate ambition without guaranteed external support. Under-targeting (aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by less than it could) may seem like a safe option for South Africa. But it’s not attractive to international climate donors.
Climate financiers may ask why they should fund pathways that lock a country in to coal for longer. They’re looking to fund concrete steps towards Paris Agreement goals.
The question is: how ambitious is ambitious enough? For South Africa, ambition is what can be delivered under its current constraints. But for development partners, ambition is what will help change the system. This is not only about the amounts of carbon being emitted, but about trust.
South Africa’s cautious stance stems partially from the history of aid ineffectiveness. In Africa, climate finance pledges have often failed to materialise at scale or have come with restrictive conditions. Donor support has not always aligned with what the recipient countries need the money for.
What needs to happen next
South Africa’s latest nationally determined contributions place most of the burden for decarbonising on the electricity industry. This is because electricity, as a massive coal user, offers the largest and fastest decarbonisation gains if it moves to renewable systems.
However, the government should not rely too much on one sector. Industry also needs to decarbonise and start making green steel and green cement, for example. The transport sector needs a fast rollout of electric vehicles to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
Major technological change in heavy industry, rapid electrification of transport, and better management of land and ecosystems to absorb carbon are needed.
South Africa also needs to co-ordinate its climate governance. Different parts of climate action are overseen by different government departments. The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment releases the carbon targets. The Department of Energy and Electricity is in charge of the country’s national energy plan. Treasury does the budgeting. The state-owned electricity company Eskom must implement energy plans. Local government or municipalities must deliver electricity and the Presidential Climate Commission provides advice and oversight.
Another issue is that the government’s new carbon targets align with the Paris Agreement on paper. But aligning with the spirit of a just and ambitious transition should be the aim.
The debate now is not only about how much carbon can be emitted, but about politics: about how climate finance is negotiated, how ambition is defined, and how governance structures can deliver.
This matters for building donor trust and seizing opportunities in the green transition.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
