OPION PEACE ON NEWS24

Mother Earth and Her Foolish Children

 

“I dream of our vast deserts, of our forests, of all our great wilderness. We must never forget that it is our duty to protect this environment.” – Nelson Mandela

 

Our environment, our natural resources and natural heritage are our greatest assets and most fundamental tools for survival. Without nature humans will never survive. Without humans, nature will thrive. We should pause and think about that for a moment.

 

 

Recognising the damage that mankind has inflicted on this planet, every year nations of the world gather for what is known as the Conference of Parties or COP for short. This global entity is the highest decision-making body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Convention seeks to secure commitments from members towards reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, which is seen as the greatest cause of global warming, through depletion of the ozone layer. Currently there are 197 parties to this Convention including South Africa. This Convention was adopted in 1992 and by 1993 the Convention had already received 166 signatures, with South Africa ratifying it in 1997.  Thirty years after the adoption of this Convention aimed at preserving our environment, we can no longer figure out what season we are in because of climate change patterns. Global warming has become so severe, that our ocean levels are rising at an alarming rate due to melting of our polar ice caps, we have frigid days in December in the southern hemisphere and tsunamis and tropical storms are wreaking havoc.

 

“Why”, one may ask, “is this happening when most nations of the world have partnered in some way or the other, through this 30 year old-Convention, to do their bit to mitigate against harmful environmental practices?” The answer is very simple: It is because we are human beings. And as human beings we never fail to commit to one thing and do another, we never fail to fall prey to our egos, and we certainly never fail to put ourselves first. The last COP meeting was held at Glasgow, Scotland last year. A lot could be gleaned from this COP26 meeting. The Convention, amongst other things, calls for countries in the developed world to assist developing countries transition to a low carbon economy. The rationale for this is obvious, developed countries are richer and they contribute more significantly to high rates of carbon emissions due to their significantly higher consumption levels. Put simply, richer industrialised countries are killing our planet faster than poorer undeveloped and developing countries.

 

In recognition of this, the Convention has in place a framework for developed countries to offer pledges, loans or grants in order to assist the rest of the world to reduce their reliance on coal. These offers of financial assistance however come with conditions, as do most loans, which may not necessarily be in the best interests of poorer countries. An obvious condition would be committed targets to shutting down coal plants. However, we have, on numerous occasions, heard or read our Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy defend the coal market. And indeed, he is correct. The shutting down of coal power plants will lead to costlier electricity, fewer jobs and damage to the economy. As we have already seen, the current proposed Eskom tariff hikes are due partly to Eskom’s commitment to independent power producers. So this raises the first few issues. Firstly, any commitment in terms of the Convention to phase out coal and fossil fuel will be met with some resistance from countries such as South Africa. Secondly, the offer of financial assistance to move away from a coal-reliant economy is not always seen as a panacea but rather as an albatross around the country’s neck.

 

COP26, also highlights some evidence of hypocrisy. The conference had negotiated a landmark agreement to phase out unabated coal and fossil fuel subsidies. Clearly this did not sit well with our world’s superpower, who in a private meeting with China, sought to change this agreement and water down the wording. And so, after the US/China “deliberation”, COP26 closed with an agreement that went from “phasing out unabated coal and fossil fuel subsidies” to “phasing down unabated coal and inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies.” This would be the same superpower who may then offer financial assistance to poorer countries on conditions which may necessitate that more is done to move away from a coal dominated market. So COP26 has also brought to the fore the issue of global political hypocrisy.

 

But let us return to our shores. One would have to be living under a rock, not to have noticed our Mineral Resources and Energy Minister’s passionate and at times, emotional support of the gas industry, as a source of energy.  The case of the Shell seismic survey off the Wild Coast of the Eastern Cape, brought to the fore the many implications such a survey would have on the marine ecosystems, the local small-scale fisheries environment, as well as the cultural rights of local communities. In their application for an interim interdict against Shell, various non-profit companies, natural persons and a communal property association came together and submitted detailed evidence from a number of experts. The evidence of the adverse effects of such a survey was substantial. One would have expected that a Minister who displays such passion for the development of a gas industry, would have countered with equal measure.  The lack of any expert evidence from the side of the Minister was glaring. Naturally the applicants were granted their orders prayed for.

 

The important question that one needs to ask is, why was the Minister’s case so scanty? Surely credible arguments, would be capable of support by credible evidence. And surely the Minister does have credible arguments, to support his view.  Afterall the Minister’s grand vision for South Africa’s future is the extraction of trillions of cubic feet of gas both onshore and offshore. Surely a vision of such magnitude is capable of being defended in a court of law. And yet there was not an iota of evidence from even a single expert to support the Minister’s views. However, his passion was not lost on the court. At paragraph 76 of the judgment the court noted as follows: “Given the emotive language used by the Minister, it is not unreasonable to believe that he would not have suspended or cancelled any of Shell’s rights, particularly the exploration right, especially since the Minister has delivered an answering affidavit wherein he “nailed his colours to Shell’s” mast…”  In all my years of practice of the law so far, I have learnt that if one is genuinely pursuing a justiciable right, one does not need emotion and passion. The evidence will present itself.  But all is not lost for our Minister. Surely, we can foresee more of such court battles as others attempt to undertake similar surveys in South African waters. Perhaps the Minister might find the evidence he needs. For as long as we have a judiciary which decides cases on evidence rather than emotion, the Minister will be forced to corroborate his passion with some credible evidence.

That having been said though, it is my belief that, despite the political, socio-economic or other conditions of the different nations in our world, one thing is clear. Governments of the day are loath to promote environmental rights over economic progress. Perhaps Minister Mantashe did not present any opposing evidence to that of the Applicants’ environmental experts, because he agrees therewith. Perhaps he agrees and does not dispute the magnitude of environmental and marine damage that will be done. Perhaps for him these were not facts in dispute. Perhaps for him they were simply not as important as the economic spin-off the survey will have for the country. Afterall, he is reported as saying: “South Africa’s economic development is oppressed in the name of environmental protection.”  Do we really need to destroy our environment in order to achieve economic development? How about if we just stop tender fraud and corruption for a start? Africa has already been ravaged by colonialism and oppressive regimes. Why do we want to destroy her natural beauty and resources as well?

 

I come back to the adage I started with. Without nature humans will never survive, without humans nature will thrive. This is my message to world leaders: “You see, the humpback whale does not know who you are, and it does not care. The towering trees of the rain forests do not know of Alexander the Great, Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Ghandi. These names are mere dwarfs in front of them. The glaciers of Mt Everest do not know of India’s colonialism or South Africa’s  apartheid. The waters of the Wild Coast off the Eastern Cape have never heard of you, Mr Mantashe and it does not need to. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in nature that needs us. It can wash away our grand visions and plans in an instant. It can burn our arrogance in the blink of an eye. It can obliterate every single person on this planet without so much as a warning. That is the power of Mother Nature. And after it has done that, it will re-build itself and Planet Earth will continue. Where will you be?”

Prenisha Sewpersadh (Ph.D)

Practising Attorney

Dr Sugudhav-Sewpersadh Attorneys contact details are as follows:

38 Kent Road, Port Shepstone

039 682 0230

062 478 7595 (urgent matters only)

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.