CBN Editor Robin Hayes asks if foreign funded vested interests are at play.
IT beggars belief that we have endured loadshedding for more than 14 years due to a toxic cocktail of government intransigence, incompetence, last century socialist ideology, vested interests and corruption.
The financial cost to the country is massively incalculable and impacts on the everyday life of every South African – more so when compounded with natural disasters and pandemics.
There are many that have benefitted from the energy impasse and have used our climate emergency to further their own goals.
It is wishful thinking to believe that renewables – principally wind and solar is our energy salvation – nowhere in the world has this proved to be true even in the most technologically advanced countries with thousands upon thousands of wind turbines or solar farms. Nuclear must rank as the ultimate renewable with fossil fuelled generation the (usually) equally reliable option but today less attractive due to environmental concerns.
The energy mix must include fossil fuel powered generation and renewables but slicing and dicing the energy cake is where the frenzy of opinion is loudest due in part to a clear lack of independent direction.
‘Third force’ at play?
We have already experienced the poisoned narratives emanating from the disgraced and now defunct UK based PR firm Bell Pottinger, engaged by Gupta acolytes to peddle influence and defame “white monopoly capital” amongst other disinformation.
Are we seeing something similar going on in the energy sector with the apparent promotion of solar and wind over natural gas in particular?
The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), a UK funded charity established by British billionaire hedge fund manager Sir Chris Holn, in partnership with Climate Emergency Collaboration Group (CECG), is commissioning a $250 000 (R4,45-million) impact evaluation of the Green Recovery Collective Campaigns in 2021/2022. It has been alleged that $6,5-million (+/-R100-million) was/is available via the CIFF to fund the campaign ‘investment’.
This is an extract from the CIFF terms of reference (ToR) document, which is in the public domain – visit: https://ciff.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/GRC-Campaigns-Evaluation-ToR_June-2021.pdf
“The investment would support the existing multi-stakeholder “Life After Coal” coalition to deliver the following: A stronger evidence base for a renewables led transition, including: ● A study on a cost comparison between existing diesel and new gas for-power plants ● A study which shows gas is uneconomic and unrequired ● A study on the jobs + just transition benefits of RE, painting a positive vision for South Africa’s future. A digital campaign aimed at tarnishing gas in South Africa, supported by new voices that want a renewable – not a gas – plan for South Africa e.g. business or economist voices, either arguing from a security of supply and a costs / benefits POV. An inside track advocacy strategy making the case for a renewables led recovery A carefully targeted public facing political campaign driven by a broad range of civil society partners. Careful audience and messaging research and strong strategic collaboration will ensure the impact of the campaign and that the country’s movement is left stronger than when this campaign began.”
Part of the ToR campaign document is a modus operandi: “Building the evidence, assets and credible spokespeople needed to influence the elite debate around gas investments and the COVID recovery, and would then broaden to a more public focused campaign focused on vilifying gas, and making the case for the economic resilience, jobs and opportunities that a renewables orientated COVID recovery would deliver for the people of South Africa”. (My emphasis in bold type.)
Has this new narrative already taken root?
A recent Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment (DFFE) stakeholder engagement session, which the DFFE put forward its proposals to cut the red tape surrounding EIA projects requiring RoD (Records of Decision) where current timeframes of 300 days could be cut to 160 days, only concerned solar PV projects.
When asked by SAOGA (South African Oil & Gas Alliance, representing 5 000 stakeholders) chairperson Craig Morkel, when the red tape would also be cut for the other technologies, including wind and gas, the DFFE did not give a categorical answer.
Legitimate lobbying and transparency are unlikely bedfellows but it is in the public interest to know who is funding so called ‘independent research and reports’ especially when the funds come from overseas and the influence they wield.
CIFF funding via the European Climate Foundation has already been received by one local consultancy to produce the Hot Air about Gas report, described in CBN’s July edition.
