South Africa at risk of losing R47 billion climate finance package

Daniel Puchert

Daniel Puchert

Journalist
Staff member
Joined
Mar 6, 2024
Messages
2,651
Reaction score
2,479
South Africa could kiss R47-billion goodbye

The US is stalling the distribution of $2.6 billion (R47 billion) in climate finance to South Africa, stoking concerns the money might be blocked outright, people familiar with the situation said.

Earlier this month actions by US representatives prevented the World Bank-linked Climate Investment Funds from approving a $500 million (R9.1 billion) disbursement to South Africa, two of the people said, asking not to be identified because a public announcement hasn’t been made on the matter.
 
It is clear this is a much broader issue than just SA:
Shortly after his inauguration, Trump promised to yank the US out of the Paris Agreement, an international climate pact.

He also canceled a pledge of $4 billion to another international climate institute, the Green Climate Fund, and withdrew from plans backed by rich nations to help Indonesia, Vietnam and South Africa reduce their reliance on coal.

That last step has already cost South Africa $1 billion in loans.
Click to expand...
 
What does it matter? In all seriousness that money was NEVER going to benefit anyone in this country. It was made available to the same people that created both caused and created load shedding. What would have changed? We would have build another Heliostat in a place known for heavy storms?

The solution is simple it is and will always be nuclear but I will not live long enough to see that happen. South Africa will lose thousands of small businesses thanks starting the 1st April 2025 thanks to a 12.73% power increase that will increase food prices, and add more burden to a struggling economy.

South Africa was on life support for a long time and America is slowly pulling the plug. No one is going to deal with us anymore.
 
Jackal46 said:
What does it matter? In all seriousness that money was NEVER going to benefit anyone in this country. It was made available to the same people that created both caused and created load shedding. What would have changed? We would have build another Heliostat in a place known for heavy storms?

The solution is simple it is and will always be nuclear but I will not live long enough to see that happen. South Africa will lose thousands of small businesses thanks starting the 1st April 2025 thanks to a 12.73% power increase that will increase food prices, and add more burden to a struggling economy.

South Africa was on life support for a long time and America is slowly pulling the plug. No one is going to deal with us anymore.
Click to expand...
100% agree on nuclear for new builds. Windmills, solar panels and mirrors are not going to reverse SA's falling energy production as our old, sick coal stations self destruct.
 
FlashSA said:
100% agree on nuclear for new builds. Windmills, solar panels and mirrors are not going to reverse SA's falling energy production as our old, sick coal stations self destruct.
Click to expand...
Nuclear is the best option, but the greenies keep harping on about the power of the gods as if we're in the 19th century.
When in reality nuclear is greener as you don't require diesel or gas backup at night or expensive batteries.
Plus you don't need to adjust how you live, cause apparently everyone needs to change how they live if you're on renewables
 
The US is stalling the distribution of $2.6 billion (R47 billion) in climate finance to South Africa, stoking concerns the money might be blocked outright, people familiar with the situation said.
Click to expand...
I suspect the following issues are affecting the $2.6b investment:
  • Expropriation Without Compensation ( "property" includes both movable and immovable assets) - ANC could expropriate any power plant paid for by the $2.6b
  • B-BBEE is a racist law and US government is now only allowing meritocracy organizations in investments
  • 30% local ownership changes (eg ICASA) would discourage investment
Stop these unfair practices if you want investment.
 
system32 said:
I suspect the following issues are affecting the $2.6b investment:
  • Expropriation Without Compensation ( "property" includes both movable and immovable assets) - ANC could expropriate any power plant paid for by the $2.6b
  • B-BBEE is a racist law and US government is now only allowing meritocracy organizations in investments
  • 30% local ownership changes (eg ICASA) would discourage investment
Stop these unfair practices if you want investment.
Click to expand...
Well it's a loan they weren't giving it to us for free
 
felixbf said:
There is no such issue as climate change. Biggest scam ever.
Click to expand...
Ragnarök said:
There is climate change for the last gazillion years , just not this man made scam
Click to expand...
Lupus said:
Nuclear is the best option, but the greenies keep harping on about the power of the gods as if we're in the 19th century.
When in reality nuclear is greener as you don't require diesel or gas backup at night or expensive batteries.
Plus you don't need to adjust how you live, cause apparently everyone needs to change how they live if you're on renewables
Click to expand...
Nice, somehow climate change deniers and someone that keeps harping on about how nuclear will solve everything are always the first to comment on these kinds of articles.

Climate change has been proven by the large oil companies themselves, with evidence of it being man-made, when it is in their best interests to not do so, which led to them trying to suppress that information for decades.

Nuclear is the most expensive form of power by a fair margin, plus takes 15-20 years to build (if including planning, etc.), with renewable (including grid) being cheaper and faster.

B-1 said:
Good, its not a package its a loan we can't afford for shutting down our coal base loads that we can't afford to shut down.
Click to expand...
These loans are usually at or near 0% interest, plus some of them had it so if you meet certain milestones, some of the loan was forgiven. These are generally really good for South Africa, they bring in more jobs, transition to cleaner energy, and mean we can actually afford to shut down coal plants, while for US/Europe, they reduce emissions around the world, so climate change that also affects them is reduced. Just look at the California wildfires, chances were/are increased by climate change, paying to reduce the chance is a win-win for them.

But of course, Trump is going to argue how it's all lies, and terrible, since of course any trade deal he writes is the best trade deal, unless of course it was so bad a trade deal he wrote it himself /s (referring to the Canada trade deal he signed in his previous presidential term).
 
Petec said:
When I tell peeps that volcano's negate humans' effect on climate change, I get scoffed at.
Then I share the following link, and they promptly shut the hell up.
Click to expand...
Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.

Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities?

Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year.
www.climate.gov www.climate.gov
Click to expand...
 
Johnatan56 said:
Nice, somehow climate change deniers and someone that keeps harping on about how nuclear will solve everything are always the first to comment on these kinds of articles.

Climate change has been proven by the large oil companies themselves, with evidence of it being man-made, when it is in their best interests to not do so, which led to them trying to suppress that information for decades.

Nuclear is the most expensive form of power by a fair margin, plus takes 15-20 years to build (if including planning, etc.), with renewable (including grid) being cheaper and faster.


These loans are usually at or near 0% interest, plus some of them had it so if you meet certain milestones, some of the loan was forgiven. These are generally really good for South Africa, they bring in more jobs, transition to cleaner energy, and mean we can actually afford to shut down coal plants, while for US/Europe, they reduce emissions around the world, so climate change that also affects them is reduced. Just look at the California wildfires, chances were/are increased by climate change, paying to reduce the chance is a win-win for them.

But of course, Trump is going to argue how it's all lies, and terrible, since of course any trade deal he writes is the best trade deal, unless of course it was so bad a trade deal he wrote it himself /s (referring to the Canada trade deal he signed in his previous presidential term).
Click to expand...
And as usual the renewable zealot pops in with his useless drivel.
Wants the world to regress like Germany is currently. Their only saving grace is having other countries to import from.
We don't have that luxury so renewables will end up costing us more, cause we need expensive peakers to run.
So how would we pay that loan back?
Nuclear only takes so long to build in western countries where your kind has scared them.
 
Johnatan56 said:
Nice, somehow climate change deniers and someone that keeps harping on about how nuclear will solve everything are always the first to comment on these kinds of articles.

Climate change has been proven by the large oil companies themselves, with evidence of it being man-made, when it is in their best interests to not do so, which led to them trying to suppress that information for decades.

Nuclear is the most expensive form of power by a fair margin, plus takes 15-20 years to build (if including planning, etc.), with renewable (including grid) being cheaper and faster.


These loans are usually at or near 0% interest, plus some of them had it so if you meet certain milestones, some of the loan was forgiven. These are generally really good for South Africa, they bring in more jobs, transition to cleaner energy, and mean we can actually afford to shut down coal plants, while for US/Europe, they reduce emissions around the world, so climate change that also affects them is reduced. Just look at the California wildfires, chances were/are increased by climate change, paying to reduce the chance is a win-win for them.

But of course, Trump is going to argue how it's all lies, and terrible, since of course any trade deal he writes is the best trade deal, unless of course it was so bad a trade deal he wrote it himself /s (referring to the Canada trade deal he signed in his previous presidential term).
Click to expand...


I'm all for renewables but not if it comes with conditions that we need to shut down our coal generation.

Sure if the renewables can cover 30% of our demand and we can run the coal plants where they run the most efficiently and shut some down for maintenance and upgrades to make them easier on the environment. But these deals are hardly ever that.
 
Awwwww hell no!
My volcano's beat your pathetic humans, any day of the week!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter