Germany gives S.Africa $911M to stop using coal last year, now imports coal from S.Africa

[dead0man]

Nov 2021

Germany will give 700 million euros ($811.65 million) towards helping South Africa phase out the use of coal, the German delegation at the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow said on Tuesday.

The aim is to mobilize a total of 8.5 billion dollars together with the World Bank and private investors to promote developing renewable energy sources in the country, said Maria Flachsbarth, Germany's parliamentary state secretary for development aid.

last month

Coal sales fro, South Africa to Europe rose eight-fold during the first six months of 2022 compared with last year as demand for the fossil fuel surged ahead of a ban on Russian coal according to Thungela Resources, a South Africa-based thermal coal exporter.

The European Union banned Russian coal imports in response to the invasion of Ukraine in April but it was not until 10 August that the ban fully took effect as part of the wide ranging sanctions.

European countries, which previously imported 45% of their coal from Russia and have been switching away from expensive natural gas to coal, ahead of the ban, started to source the fossil fuel from other countries. That has included Colombia, Australia and the United States and also South Africa.

Thungela, a leading South African coal exporter said Europe was competing with Asia for South African coal.

The Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Denmark, France, Italy and Ukraine are among European countries were importing growing quantities of coal from South Africa.

In the first five months of this year, European countries imported more than 3 million tonnes of coal from South Africa. This is over 40% more than the total volume in 2021.

to be clear, I am not saying they are necessarily wrong about either action, just posting for the comedy of it.

[HillGoose]

well that sure is a confusing decision

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

German Greens are hypocrites. News at 11.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, that's one way to have South Africa stop using their coal.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Good intentions, horrific implementation. Pretty much the Left's raison d'etre.

[Middle-aged Europe]

In between either date there was February 24, 2022.

This is how history works.

[Lief 🗽]

Environmental activists must go down as one of the great villains of Earth’s history. Deeply evil people.

[parochial boy]

Are you all saying that it was somehow... wrong for Germany to fund South Africa to stop using coal?

I mean, coal is nasty stuff; and all the more so in South Africa where a lot of it is mined illegally and informally with a consequential huge risk to both the safety and health of the people who are forced to do it in order to survive. Never mind the immense and nasty health consequences that burning the stuff has in the region around Ermelo where this mostly takes place. For various reasons, South Africa has a lot of major issues with its energy provision right now, but moving away from coal is obviously something very important not just for climate reasons but for the health and wellbeing of the people who live in the Mpumalanga coal fields.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Are you all saying that it was somehow... wrong for Germany to fund South Africa to stop using coal?

I mean, coal is nasty stuff; and all the more so in South Africa where a lot of it is mined illegally and informally with a consequential huge risk to both the safety and health of the people who are forced to do it in order to survive. Never mind the immense consequences that burning the stuff has in the region around Ermelo where it is mostly transported to and burned. For various reasons, South Africa has a lot of major issues with its energy provision right now, but moving away from coal is obviously something very important not just for climate reasons but for the health and wellbeing of the people who live in the Mpumalanga coal fields.

It was wrong because Germany, at that point, was still digging up its own villages for lignite coal and phasing out its own nuclear power plants. There were already more efficient avenues to saving the planet.

[Lord Halifax]

Are you all saying that it was somehow... wrong for Germany to fund South Africa to stop using coal?

I mean, coal is nasty stuff; and all the more so in South Africa where a lot of it is mined illegally and informally with a consequential huge risk to both the safety and health of the people who are forced to do it in order to survive. Never mind the immense consequences that burning the stuff has in the region around Ermelo where it is mostly transported to and burned. For various reasons, South Africa has a lot of major issues with its energy provision right now, but moving away from coal is obviously something very important not just for climate reasons but for the health and wellbeing of the people who live in the Mpumalanga coal fields.

It was wrong because Germany, at that point, was still digging up its own villages for lignite coal and phasing out its own nuclear power plants. There were already more efficient avenues to saving the planet.

Germany doing something wrong in their own country doesn't make it wrong to do something good elsewhere, and coal needs to be phased out worldwide.

And could you please not use the stupid right wing line about "saving the planet", the planet will be fine no matter what, it's existing ecosystems and the sustainability of the current number of humans that are in danger. "Saving humanity" is hyperbole too, but still better than dragging the planet into this. The planet will be here millions of years after Homo Sapiens have managed to wipe ourselves out.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Are you all saying that it was somehow... wrong for Germany to fund South Africa to stop using coal?

I mean, coal is nasty stuff; and all the more so in South Africa where a lot of it is mined illegally and informally with a consequential huge risk to both the safety and health of the people who are forced to do it in order to survive. Never mind the immense consequences that burning the stuff has in the region around Ermelo where it is mostly transported to and burned. For various reasons, South Africa has a lot of major issues with its energy provision right now, but moving away from coal is obviously something very important not just for climate reasons but for the health and wellbeing of the people who live in the Mpumalanga coal fields.

It was wrong because Germany, at that point, was still digging up its own villages for lignite coal and phasing out its own nuclear power plants. There were already more efficient avenues to saving the planet.

Germany doing something wrong in their own country doesn't make it wrong to do something good elsewhere, and coal needs to be phased out worldwide.

It is probably wrong because it is inefficient and hypocritical. That money would have gone much further elsewhere and would have arguably left Germany with stronger political standing when it came to promoting climate policy elsewhere in the world.

And could you please not use the stupid right wing line about "saving the planet", the planet will be fine no matter what, it's existing ecosystems and the sustainability of the current number of humans that are in danger. "Saving humanity" is hyperbole too, but still better than dragging the planet into this. The planet will be here millions of years after Homo Sapiens have managed to wipe ourselves out.

I broadly agree, but I believe it is politically useful shorthand. Even the rock itself (“the planet” has wider cultural connotations) will eventually be in danger, and its occupants have the next 8 billion years to work out how to tell the Sun to back off.

[parochial boy]

Yeah exactly, the one doesn't really have a bearing on the other. Germany's failings in its own domestic energy provision doesn't make it wrong to support South Africa reduce its own use of coal.

In fact, considering the degree to which South Africa is dependent on coal and the nefarious impact that this has on the health of already poor people in coal mining regions - I dare say that supporting South Africa in beginning its energy transition is almost more of a priority, certainly something that is totally valuable regardless of the circumstances.

[Middle-aged Europe]

It was and is the position of the German government to end the use of coal by 2030. Until then coal must come from somewhere. Following the invasion of Ukraine the EU has decided to reduce and end importing Russian coal (and gas). Therefore coal must come from someplace else. It is true that German government failed to foresee the invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing ramifications last year. Hence the change of policy since February 24.

I fail to see in most of the knee-jerk comments in this thread what the alternative course of action is supposed to be here. And don't start with nuclear power now. You don't build new plants over night. Keeping the existing plants running (which is what is probably going to happen now anyway) won't compensate for the loss of Russian coal imports and the second article dead0man posted mentioned that other (more nuclear-dependent) European countries like France or Ukraine were also stepping up their African coal imports.

[CumbrianLefty]

Environmental activists must go down as one of the great villains of Earth’s history. Deeply evil people.

You spelled "climate change deniers" wrong.

[If my soul was made of stone]

Environmental activists must go down as one of the great villains of Earth’s history. Deeply evil people.

MISS ME YET?

[Lief 🗽]

Environmental activists must go down as one of the great villains of Earth’s history. Deeply evil people.

You spelled "climate change deniers" wrong.

Functionally the same thing, unfortunately.