The South African energy ministry has suggested that the country should scale back its climate ambitions, looking to use more gas and less renewables than previously planned.
The ministry, led by pro-coal minister Gwede Mantatashe, released its draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) on Thursday.
Energy analysts complained that it fails to reveal the figures on which its controversial assumptions are based and pointed out that it contrasts sharply with South Africa’s already approved just energy transition strategy.
Under the new IRP’s preferred scenario, the government will add 6 gigawatts (GW) of new gas by 2030 but just 4.5 GW of new wind and solar between 2024 and 2030.
Azerbaijan appoint state oil company veteran as Cop29 president
Together with private sector-led projects, this would lift the share of renewables in the power mix to 22% by the end of the decade.
That’s according to calculations by Tobias Bischof-Niemz, a former policy adviser at the state-owned energy research unit CSIR.
That is a step back from the 2019 iteration of the IRP, which saw renewables reaching at least 33% of the mix by 2030.
Moreover, in April local universities, research entities, business groups and the government’s official climate advisers found that South Africa needs to add 50-60GW of solar and wind this decade to end rolling blackouts and meet its climate commitments. Doing so would push the share of renewables above 40%.
Happy Khambule, environment and energy manager at Business Unity South Africa and former member of the government’s climate advisory body, told Climate Home that “the IRP deviates from widely accepted models and shows a lack of ambition”.
South Africa is Africa’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter thanks to its heavy reliance on coal, which supplies more than four-fifths of the nation’s electricity.
Yet regular power cuts have hobbled the economy since 2007 due to ongoing breakdowns across the country’s fleet of ageing coal plants.
At the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow in 2021, a group of wealthy nations announced they would help fund South African investments in renewable energy, transmission infrastructure, green hydrogen, and electric vehicle manufacturing.
The South African government has since approved a just energy transition investment plan, which has $11.9 billion in financial commitments so far and which largely follows the climate commission’s recommendations.
But the new IRP, which says rolling blackouts will likely continue until at least 2028, shows that Mantashe’s department has different ideas.
Mantashe is a former coal miner who rose to power through the trade union movement. He has long called for new public investments in coal, gas and nuclear power, arguing that these technologies which can provide electricity when called upon are necessary for both energy security and economic development.
In 2022, Mantashe clashed publicly with the then head of the state-owned power company Eskom Andre De Ruyter, who favoured a more ambitious renewable energy programme.
Mantashe signed off on the draft IRP, a 48-page document which looks at a number of possible pathways to 2030 and then to 2050.
One pathway relies on delaying the closure of five coal plants by a decade and focusing on improving their performance, while another envisages the addition of up to 6GW of so-called “cleaner coal” technologies.
The IRP also considers investment in nuclear energy as well as a renewables-only pathway – although it claims that this option is not feasible.
“It is evident that energy pathways based on renewable and clean energy technologies only deliver the desired outcome insofar as decarbonising the power system,” the IRP reads. “However, these pathways do not provide security of supply while carrying the highest cost to implement.”
Indonesia promises to fine palm oil companies operating in forests
But Emily Tyler, the climate policy lead at Meridian Economics Emily Tyler dispute this conclusion. She told Climate Home: “All credible South African power system modelling exercises show substantial renewable energy capacity in the least-cost case…and little utilised gas, no nuclear, and no new coal”.
While it does not make any definitive conclusions, the IRP suggests that the best option would be to reduce the renewables programme and build up a gas industry.
According to this pathway, South Africa should procure 7 GW of gas capacity by 2030 and another 33.4 GW over the following two decades, increasingly using gas drilled locally.
Tyler said that, if this plan goes ahead, private industry would build its own cheap renewable energy while “the poor will be left with very expensive grid electricity as the only option”.
Tyler adds that the lack of technical detail in the draft IRP makes it “impossible to assess”.
Despite deadly air pollution in coal regions like Mpumalanga, the plan suggests the need to find a way around compliance with South Africa’s air quality standards to ensure coal plants can legally remain online.
Eskom is technically in breach of the nation’s minimum emission standards, but has been granted exemptions until March 2025. If the rules are implemented from that date, Eskom would have to remove up to 30GW of coal capacity from the mix.
“A balance will have to be found between energy security, the adverse health impacts of poor air quality, and the economic cost associated with these plants shutting down,” the IRP states.
The draft plan is out for public comment. Once approved, it will allow policymakers to procure new generating capacity in line with its recommendations.
The post South African ministry uses opaque modelling to argue for weakening climate ambition appeared first on Climate Home News.
South African ministry uses opaque modelling to argue for weakening climate ambition
Climate Change
‘This is a fossil fuel crisis’, Greenpeace tells Senate gas tax Inquiry, citing homegrown renewables as path to energy security
CANBERRA, Tuesday 21 April 2026 — Greenpeace Australia Pacific has slammed gas corporation war profiteering and environmental damage in a scathing Senate hearing today as part of the Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources, urging fair taxation of gas corporations and the transition to secure, homegrown renewable energy to protect Australian households and the economy from future energy shocks.
Speaking at the hearing, Greenpeace said the US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has laid bare the fundamental flaws of an energy system built on fossil fuel extraction, geopolitical power plays and corporate greed, and will be a defining moment for how the world thinks about energy security.
Greenpeace’s submission and full opening remarks can be found here.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“This is not an energy crisis, it’s a fossil fuel crisis. The crisis we’re all facing lays bare the dangers of fossil fuel dependence, for our energy security, our communities, and for global peace and stability.
“Gas corporations like Woodside, Santos, Shell and Chevron — the same companies whose CEOs refused to front this Inquiry — are making obscene war profits, using the illegal war on Iran to price gouge, profiteer and push for more gas we don’t need — while people and our environment pay the price.
“Australians are getting smashed by soaring bills and the impacts of climate disasters — gas corporations should be paying their fair share to help this country, instead of sending billions offshore, tax-free.
“But we’re at a turning point — while gas corporations cynically push to open up more of our oceans and land to drilling for fossil fuels, our allies like the UK are doubling down on renewables in response to the fossil fuel crisis. Our trading partners in Asia are making the same reassessment of fossil fuels.
“Which is why the hearing today is crucial: an effective and well-designed tax on the gas industry’s obscene war time profits is a chance to channel funds to people and communities, fast-track the rollout of clean, secure homegrown wind and solar energy, while holding polluters accountable.
“Our dependence on fossil fuels leave us overexposed to the whims of tyrants like Trump — it’s in Australia’s national interest to end the fossil fuel chokehold for good and usher in the era of clean energy security.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
HOW WOODSIDE’S BROWSE GAS PROPOSAL THREATENS SCOTT REEF’S GREEN TURTLES AND PYGMY BLUE WHALES
Woodside’s Browse to NWS gas project is under assessment by the WA and Federal Governments right now. This is a project that involved drilling up to 50 gas wells around Scott Reef off the coast of WA. Gas would be extracted directly underneath Scott Reef and Sandy Islet and pumped through a 900-kilometre subsea pipeline to the NWS gas processing facility.
Woodside’s Browse gas project’s impact on Scott Reef’s marine habitats?
Scott Reef is one of Australia’s most ecologically significant marine environments, where green turtles breed, pygmy blue whales feed, and an array of at-risk species, including sharks, dolphins, whale sharks, rays, sawfish and sea snakes thrive. It is home to many threatened species, including some found nowhere else on Earth or in genetically isolated groups, magnifying its importance from a conservation perspective.
This delicate reef’s ecosystem faces multiple threats if Woodside’s Proposed Project goes ahead, including seismic blasting, gas flaring, noise pollution, artificial lighting, pipe laying and fast-moving vessels. The reef also faces the risk of a gas well blowout, which could have catastrophic and irreversible consequences for the region’s reefs and marine parks.
Woodside’s woeful marine impacts management plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles and endangered pygmy blue whales if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodsides management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Their assessment found that Woodsides management plans for these species misrepresents or does not assess the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s pygmy blue whales and green turtles. They’ve also surmised that if the project goes ahead the impacts contradict the Australian government’s own recovery plan for turtles and Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for Blue Whales.
The State and Federal Governments now have the opportunity to define their legacies on nature protection and save Scott Reef from Woodside’s dirty gas.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia with Dr Olaf Meynecke of Griffith University.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital feeding, foraging and resting habitat for pygmy blue whales.
Pygmy blue whales feed, forage and rest in the Scott Reef region every year. Scott Reef is recognised as a Biologically Important Area for the pygmy blue whale and is an important stop-over on their annual migration.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
- Woodside’s management plan claims of “no credible threat of significant impacts” are not supported by scientific evidence.
- The management plan relies on outdated whale population information.
- Woodside has claimed it is unclear whether Scott Reef is a foraging habitat for pygmy blue whales, despite the presence of pygmy blue whales and significant concentrations of krill being documented in the area.
- The PBWMP ignores the impacts of industrial noise on whale-to-whale communication. This is especially concerning as mother-calf pairs migrate through the Scott Reef Biologically Important Area shortly after calves are born. Mother-calf pairs rely on continuous, uninterrupted communications to maintain their connection.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital nesting ground for unique green turtles.
The green turtles that nest at Scott Reef’s low-lying Sandy Islet sand cay and nearby Browse Island are genetically unique and are classified as ‘Extremely Vulnerable’ in Australia’s Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
- The Browse project would operate within 20 kilometres of nesting habitat that’s critical to the survival of Scott Reef’s genetically unique and vulnerable green turtle population.
- Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan (TMP) misrepresents the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s green turtles.
- Claims in Woodside’s TMP about Scott Reef’s green turtle population size, nesting success and hatchling numbers are not backed by scientific evidence.
- The TMP proposes gathering updated data after the Browse project is approved.
- Woodside’s TMP proposes adding sand sourced elsewhere to Sandy Islet to counter subsidence and erosion, but fails to properly assess the associated risks.
To save Scott Reef and protect our oceans and animals, the State and Federal Governments must reject Browse.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodside’s management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits