.jpeg)
The Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill currently being considered by the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee for Mineral Resources and Energy is fatally flawed and should be rejected by South Africans. It will create a separation of the regulation of the upstream petroleum industry from the law of the mining industry, with the former regulated by the bill and the latter continuing to be regulated by the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act. This split will cause South Africa to fall foul of its climate change commitments and lacks any mechanism to ensure local economic development. The exploitation of gas resources through extraction and processing contributes to global warming through the release of methane, which has an 84 times higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide. International institutions such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency confirm that climate change is human-made and we must limit global warming to 1.5oC above pre-industrial levels to avert the worst effects of climate change.
The bill does not refer to climate change, nor does it have any mechanisms for ensuring that gas companies may only operate provided they do not contribute towards worsening the climate crisis. It must undergo an about-turn if South Africa hopes to meet its Local economic development is essential for averting climate catastrophe. Mining and gas companies often force their will on local communities to extract mineral and petroleum resources, leaving them with little to no economic or other benefit. The bill does not attempt to address this injustice, as it does not provide a social and labour plan nor any alternative mechanism to benefit local communities. It also does not address gender injustice, as large-scale extraction projects often impact women more severely.
The bill's purported aim to advance the social and economic welfare of all South Africans is lip service only, and its actual provisions leave us facing the barrel of irreversible climate catastrophe. It should be rejected.
This article is initially published by groundup.org.za
