LETTER: Shell case has been weaponised

I refer to your editorial, “Shell’s Wild Coast saga a litmus test” (May 20).

You posit that the Shell court case will have repercussions for SA’s investment and energy development potential. Big court cases are never apolitical and are influenced by, and are likely to influence, the court of public opinion. This is why it is important to respond to the narratives that arise.

This case is before the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), where judgment is expected in the coming weeks. Lawyers argued that investment would be deterred should the SCA stand by the high court judgment setting aside an exploration right granted by the ministry of energy to allow for oil and gas exploration off the Wild Coast. This is a mischaracterisation of the case, which is really about the standards that should be adopted when assessing impacts on communities and the environment. 

The Shell case is being weaponised to create the false impression that communities are anti-development. This is because communities want better consultation practices and a proper consideration of the likely impacts of a project on livelihoods. Communities want an alternative to what has come before, not more of the same extraction and destruction that has characterised “development” in Africa.

The editorial infers that even clean energy investment will be hampered by this, possibly referring to the concept of natural gas as a transition fuel. However, when considering its entire life cycle, gas can be just as harmful as coal. The concept of gas as “green energy” is a tool that fossil fuel companies use to continue to profit. 

At a time when a global recession, increasing costs of living and load-shedding are creating uncertainty and stress generally, of course the “economic argument” takes centre stage in energy debates, even though science, experience and global trends are telling us to broaden our thinking.

The government has adopted a relentless reliance on “energy security” as the driver for its energy policy, reinforcing the belief that we need energy at any cost, regardless of the consequences. Conversely, a goal of energy justice is driving policy across the globe, which includes the consideration of climate change, the trans-boundary effects of energy decisions, and future generations’ ability to meet their own demand.

Considering SA’s role in emitting carbon, the country would be wise to take the “energy justice” route, which has no place for fossil fuel development “at all costs”. Science also tells us energy justice leads to security, and not vice versa. These are not quaint ideals, but speak to SA’s moral and international duty to use a human rights and justice lens for all its energy decisions, including whether to allow companies to pursue their profits in our oceans.

Reuben Holland and Claire Martens
Natural Justice

JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businesslive.co.za. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.