<article><p class="lead">South African environmental campaigners have called on the government to scrap its plan for floating gas-fired power plants to provide 1.22GW of emergency power for 20 years.</p><p>Earlier this month the government named Turkey's Karpowership as one of the <a href="https://direct.argusmedia.com/newsandanalysis/article/2197305">preferred bidders</a> for its risk mitigation independent power producer (IPP) procurement programme, which aims to fast-track the purchase of 2GW to alleviate the country's chronic electricity supply crisis.</p><p>The firm will fulfil its contract obligations by using three LNG-fuelled power ships that will be berthed at Richards Bay (450MW) in Kwazulu-Natal, Coega (450MW) in the Eastern Cape and Saldanha (320MW) in the Western Cape.</p><p>Tomorrow is the deadline for public comments on the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for these emergency power project proposals.</p><p>A number of commentators have questioned the government's rationale for allowing it to be tied into a contract for 20 years if it is meant to be an emergency stop-gap measure.</p><p>Given the reality of climate change, it is concerning that the government has opted to lock South Africa into another 20 years of fossil fuel usage rather than promoting renewable energy projects, environmental justice group Green Connection said.</p><p>According to Green Connection, which works to empower small-scale fishing communities and protect South Africa's seas, Karpowership's projects should not be endorsed because their EIA is critically flawed.</p><p>The EIA lacks crucial data and brushes aside too many negative impacts for South Africans and the environment without giving it the necessary scrutiny, Green Connection's strategic lead, Liziwe McDaid, said.</p><p>"It is almost as though government does not want to know the full impact of its projects," McDaid said.</p><p>The EIA's climate change impact assessment estimates that the three power ships would emit 54.33mn t of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) over the 20-year period. It does not evaluate the social or economic costs of these emissions, which Green Connection calculates amounts to $22.65bn, based on a University of California San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy formula.</p><p>Green Connection believes that the EIA should have considered alternatives such as wind, geothermal energy or solar, which are less greenhouse gas (GHG) intensive. The comparative cost to the taxpayer of Karpowership-generated electricity compared with the equivalent power generated by renewables is also not provided, it points out. </p><p>The EIA fails to properly consider pollution into the marine environment or the risk of a worst-case scenario, such as a gas explosion from a ruptured pipeline, the group said. While the EIA refers to the fact that the ships run on heavy fuel oil, it does not assess the air pollution impacts of this.</p><p>The EIA also does not factor in the devastating impacts the projects could have on small-scale fishing communities, which were already dealt a crushing blow by Covid-19 lockdown restrictions, Green Connection said.</p><p>Covid restrictions have prevented the fishing community to meaningfully engage in the public participation process as many members cannot afford the data or computer equipment needed to participate in the decision-making process. Community representatives also claim that the environmental consultants did not adequately advertise meetings about the proposed projects.</p><p>"In our rush to address the country's energy issues, we should not sacrifice the human rights of its citizens," McDaid said.</p><p>The EIA further fails to take into account that Karpowership's projects will be tax-exempt because of being located in special economic zones (SEZs) and, according to media reports, will enjoy a blanket exemption from statutory 40pc local content requirements.</p><p>Karpowership is part of Istanbul-based Karadeniz Energy Group.</p><p>In August, South Africa's environment ministry <a href="https://direct.argusmedia.com/newsandanalysis/article/2136364">revoked permission</a> it granted to Karpowership to provide electricity under emergency provisions that allowed the firm to sidestep environmental authorisation requirements.</p><p class="bylines">Elaine Mills</p></article>
