Green Anglicans joined the SAFCEI in their weekly vigil outside Parliament in Capetown. Bishop Geoff Davies explains why Nuclear power is not the right answer to South Africa’s energy crisis. Why is our government, a government of the people we hope, going in entirely the wrong direction to overcome inequality, poverty and unemployment? Our country needs labour intensive development that equips and builds our people. The government’s nuclear plan will bring about further conflict, inequality and social destruction. The government may have only signed a nuclear co-operation agreement with Russia but the statement that South Africa has already signed such agreements with South Korea and the USA and will sign similar agreements with France, China and Japan shows the government’s clear commitment to nuclear, in spite of the warning of the National Development Plan (NDP) regarding costs. Why? Why is the government hell-bent on pursuing the nuclear energy route? We can only presume that it is because of the immense amounts of money that is involved in nuclear, and the abundant opportunities for those in power to benefit, both legally and under the counter. Recall that the Arms Deal involved R70 billion. Now we are talking at least R1 trillion. And nuclear energy is dangerous stuff, so you have to keep it under wraps, hence the need for the carefully prepared secrecy bill. We will not be kept informed, never mind consulted. Like millions in our country, I rejoiced when the ANC came into power. Why then do we see the government pursuing policies which enrich the powerful and further impoverish the poor? Democratically, a major flaw is the belief that the victory in 1994 was that the ANC gained power. The victory was democracy, which the ANC had played a leading role in bringing about and must now defend. But democracy means human rights and participation and consultation and transparency and even the transfer of power through the ballot. Otherwise we transfer power from one authoritarian group to another. Another hard won victory of democracy over the ages is “no taxation without representation”. It is acknowledged by the Department of Energy that we – the South African public – will have to pay for this “investment” of R1 trillion. Given that nuclear power construction invariably doubles in construction time and cost, we will be lucky if it is as little as R1 trillion. Though the government won a majority of seats, in no way did we authorise them to indebt us to the Russians – or whoever – for the next 60 years, long after Jacob Zuma is dead and buried. What an alarming legacy to leave us. The President is meant to serve his country, not enslave it in debt. The Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute’s fundamental question is why the government is choosing nuclear as the right and best use of scarce resources in our young democracy, when there are so many better alternatives. We have never had an opportunity to engage with government over this, nor the courtesy of a reply, even when we have hand-delivered letters to the Presidency. Three years ago the then Director General of Energy, Niliswa Magubane, stated “If the government wants nuclear, I will make sure they get it”. So nuclear was forced into the IRP (Integrated Resource Plan) though it was clear it was not needed. A meeting of faith leaders early last year resolved to approach government urgently to express our deep concerns regarding the socio-economic implications of choosing nuclear energy. Together with SAFCEI’s letters, statements from the KZN Inter-Religious Council, signed by Cardinal Napier, and the WC Religious Leaders Forum were resent to the President and the Deputy President, who was chair of the National Nuclear Coordinating Committee until President Zuma took it over. This move by President Zuma ended the promise of a meeting with the Deputy President whose office admitted that the President and government ministers attended nuclear events but had not allowed the same engagement with civil society. We thought we might get a hearing in the Parliamentary Energy portfolio meeting of “stakeholders and nuclear energy”. Civil society participants were subjected to two hours of what is best described as nuclear propaganda by the Department of Energy and NECSA. We learnt nothing new, but the old untruths, such as “only coal and nuclear can provide base load electricity”, “nuclear energy will employ thousands” and “nuclear energy will bring electricity to all the people of SA” were reitereated. Nonsense. Centralised electricity generation cannot reach the two million rural households scattered across our country. Only decentralised renewable energy (RE) can do that. After the presentations the chair announced that the many members of civil society in attendance had three minutes each to comment. When challenged he asked if we really expected the portfolio committee to change government policy. We then heard that the government’s response had been to budget R300 million to convince the ignorant, fearful SA public that nuclear energy is quite safe. So we ask “where is democracy, transparency, accountability in our new democracy?” Why are we so concerned? Why do we say the nuclear energy route is taking us in the wrong direction democratically, socially, financially and environmentally? Our urgent priority is to overcome inequality and poverty. To do this we must train, equip and capacitate our people. As Bongani Coka, chief executive of Productivity SA, recently stated, “A country may have many positive elements – mineral wealth, diverse natural and cultural assets, but its most enduring strength will be its people…The upliftment in the skills and education levels of our people is critical…Our people will ultimately drive the development of our economy.” I continue to be amazed that this government of the people thinks it more important to spend the equivalent of our annual national income on nuclear energy rather than training, developing and building our people and communities. Is the government blind to the more than 2,000 service delivery protests annually, 200 of which are seriously violent? Protestors do […]
