Fall in line on climate change, Sasol told

Comment on this story


iol scitech nov 9 sasol CA_secundaa0

REUTERS

Sasol's Secunda plant

Energy giant Sasol, South Africa’s second-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases and operator of the world’s biggest single-point emission source – at Secunda in Mpumalanga – has been told by the government in no uncertain terms to accept its newly adopted climate change policy.

This policy includes the principle of carbon budgets, or caps on greenhouse gas emissions, for each of the country’s major polluting industrial sectors and for big individual polluters like Sasol and Eskom, South Africa’s biggest emitter. They are both likely to be strongly affected when hard figures for these caps are decided – possibly next year.

The new policy also includes the principle of a carbon tax which could be levied on emissions.

Sasol has also been challenged by the chairman of the National Assembly’s water and environmental affairs’ portfolio committee, Johnny de Lange, to change corporate direction from primary fuel production and to consider investing heavily in green, low carbon technologies like renewable energy.

“If I were you guys, you and Eskom, I’d be like China,” De Lange told a Sasol delegation making a presentation to his committee as part of public hearings on the government’s new National Climate Change Response Strategy, or white paper, policy document.

“You become the expert on renewable energies, and the monopolies… I would grab the thing by the horns and run with it.”

His remarks came soon after Australia passed landmark laws yesterday to impose a price on carbon emissions in one of the biggest economic reforms in a decade, Reuters reported. The vote in the Senate made Australia the second major economy behind the EU to pass carbon-limiting legislation.

Norbert Behrens, Sasol’s group general manager: strategy and planning, told De Lange’s committee that 60 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions were produced by the top five industrialised countries, of which only Germany was “seriously pursuing” climate change policies.

South Africa produced just 1.1 percent of the world emissions total.

Because South Africa relied heavily on coal and had no significant natural gas resources, which were less polluting and hence more cost-effective, the country was at an economic disadvantage relative to its competitors, Behrens said.

Saying Sasol believed a detailed analysis of South Africa’s emissions were necessary, he added: “We do not oppose a carbon tax outright, but we do not support it as it is set out in the white paper. In our view it doesn’t sufficiently take into account socio-economic consequences.”

But De Lange said he was “very stunned” by Sasol’s attitude and tore into the presenters, saying emission reduction targets set out in the white paper were based on international commitments.

“You should be the last people to want to come and move the goalposts… This is government policy now, adopted by government.”

Later, De Lange said South Africa would definitely set mandatory carbon budgets for industrial sectors and companies such as Sasol, even though reciprocal finance and technological assistance promised in terms of the climate change convention (UNFCCC) had not yet materialised, and he wanted them in place in less than two years.

“I think you’re living in a complete dream world if you think it’s not going to happen.” - Cape Argus

Hungry for more scitech news? Sign up for our daily newsletter

sign up

Share |  

Facebook icon

Facebook

Twitter icon

Twitter

Google icon

Google

Yahoo icon

Yahoo

Reddit icon

Reddit

del.icio.us icon

del.icio.us

Pinterest icon

Pinterest

Email

Print

  • Rate this article
  • Average reader rating (0 votes) 0 Stars

Comment Guidelines



  1. Please read our comment guidelines.
  2. Login and register, if you haven’ t already.
  3. Write your comment in the block below and click (Post As)

Anonymous, wrote

IOL Comments
05:38am on 17 November 2011
IOL Comments

Firstly if one looks at the 12C13C ratio's, a value over 1.1% would indicate in todays terms that industry or high temperature emitters are causing global warming. unfortunately the values measured are below the ratio. its sad that when people are unemployed that govt still cant make technical and consistent policies !

Report this

IOL Comments

Lee, wrote

IOL Comments
09:12pm on 14 November 2011
IOL Comments

A new tax that the government can squander? Do we really believe that the government will really pump the tax money back into the environment?

Report this

IOL Comments

Pink Panther, wrote

IOL Comments
08:51pm on 13 November 2011
IOL Comments

Sasol has already announced that it will stop any future expansion based on coal and with the governments moratorium on fracking, Sasol will not expand any further in SA. Sasol has however already build a major GTL facility in the Middle East and is in the process of expanding big time into Russia, the US, Canada and India. Within a few years the SA production will become insignificant compared to that abroad and Sasol can then easily cut its emissions by 100% by closing down its SA factories. Thousands of people losing their jobs must then ask government why this happened.

Report this

IOL Comments

John Dodds, wrote

IOL Comments
06:40pm on 11 November 2011
IOL Comments

If I were SASOL I would tell the Government to go take a flying leap. Governement policies can NOT dictate the laws of physics. If the government wants to stop CO2 emissions then SASOL can certainly just shut down. How would the Government deal with zero power and constant blackouts? Recent data from the US says that there has been a 36% increase in CO2 emissions in the last 12 years, and yet the temperature has not risen past the 1998 peak. More recent data for 2010 and 11 shows a 3.6 rise in CO2 emissions (with the anemic economic recovery)and actual Decrease in the temperature. So just where is the reality that more CO2 causes more warming? The theory says that more CO2 causes more greenhouse effect, which actually would cause warming, BUT what if there is no increase in energy photons involved in the greenhouse effect? Would we not just get excess CO2 sitting around at room temperature waiting for a photon? JUST like we now have excess GHG Water Vapor sitting around waiting for an added photon. It is the number of energy photons that causes the warming you scientificly illiterate people. More CO2 can NOT create more energy. It is against the laws of physics. THe idea that the mere presence of GHGs can create positive feedback violates the Law that says man can NOT create energy. He can only borrow it from somewhere else. Get some common sense

Report this

IOL Comments

Lennon, wrote

IOL Comments
11:28am on 11 November 2011
IOL Comments

Go ahead. Pass a carbon tax law. Watch prices on EVERYTHING soar. Expect trouble from the public, especially those who already struggle to survive under the weight of our current laundry list of taxes and levies.

Report this

IOL Comments

Showing items 1 - 5 of 5

Join us on

IOL-Social networks IOL-Social networks
IOL-Social networks

Mobile
on m.iol.co.za

IOL-Social networks

Newsletters
Subscribe

IOL-Social networks

RSS feeds
Subscribe