Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

In the matter of the "Cancel Coal" case (2023), youth-led civil organizations including the African Climate Alliance, the Vukani Environmental Justice Movement in Action, and the Groundwork Trust brought legal action against the South African government's plan to expand coal-fired power generation. The plaintiffs challenged the government's 2019 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), which proposed adding 1,500 MW of coal power to the national grid, arguing that it violated constitutional protections, particularly regarding environmental rights and the interests of future generations. n a landmark ruling. The High Court of South Africa has overturned the government’s plans for new coal-fired power stations deeming it unconstitutional. 

What was the Background of Cancel Coal Case? 

• In October 2019, the South African government announced plans in its Integrated Resource Plan to add 1,500 MW of coal power to the national grid (750 MW by 2023 and 750 MW by 2027). 
• Three youth-led civil organizations - African Climate Alliance, Vukani Environmental Justice Movement, and Groundwork Trust - filed a legal challenge in 2021 against this plan. 
• The civil organizations argued that the coal expansion would harm the environment and cause health issues, particularly affecting children's well-being. 
• South Africa currently relies heavily on coal, with about 71% of its total energy supply coming from coal power as of 2022. 
• The country has committed to the Paris Agreement and plans to cut 350-420 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, aiming for net-zero by 2050. 
• The High Court in Pretoria ruled on 4th December, 2023, that the government's coal expansion plan was unconstitutional. 
• The Court found that the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and the National Energy Regulator failed to provide evidence that they had considered environmental and health impacts. 
• The ruling was based on South Africa's Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to have the environment protected for present and future generations. 
• This case is considered a landmark victory for environmental justice and climate litigation in South Africa. 

What was the Court Observation? 

• The court found that the government's coal expansion plan was "inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa" and therefore unlawful. 
• The Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and the National Energy Regulator failed to provide sufficient evidence showing they had considered the environmental impacts. 
• The court determined that the authorities didn't adequately examine the health effects of coal power, especially on children's well-being. 
• The ruling states that the government failed to "comply with their constitutional obligations" in making the decision. 
• The court upheld South African citizens' constitutional right "to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations." 
• The judgment states Section 28 of the South African Constitution, which requires the state to protect children against "neglect and degradation." 
• The court established that government decisions must not be based solely on immediate short-term needs but must consider long-term holistic impacts. 
• The ruling recognized that energy planning decisions must align with the country's environmental protection obligations under the Constitution. 

Why is #CancelCoal important? 

• Health Impact: 
  • Coal-fired power stations cause over 2,200 deaths annually in South Africa 
  • Local residents near coal plants suffer from severe health problems due to poor air quality 
  • Causes thousands of cases of bronchitis and asthma in both adults and children 
  • The health impacts cost South Africa more than R30 billion yearly through hospital admissions and lost work days 
• Economic Reasons: 
  • New coal plants require significant time and money to construct and maintain 
  • This leads to increased electricity costs for all consumers 
  • Renewable energy offers a more cost-effective and quickly deployable alternative 
• Employment Concerns: 
  • Coal industry workers face increasing risk of job losses 
  • Workers are exposed to unhealthy working conditions 
  • The renewable energy sector and green economy can potentially create more job opportunities than coal 
  • This transition requires careful planning to protect workers 
• Climate Impact: 
  • Coal is a major contributor to climate change 
  • Results in extreme weather events that threaten communities 
  • Reducing emissions through sustainable energy alternatives is crucial 
  • There's an intergenerational responsibility to address climate change 

What is India's Position on Transitioning from Coal to Renewable Energy? 

• The M.K. Ranjit Singh. v. Union of India (2024) case shows the need to transition from coal to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. 
• For the first time, three Indian ministries—Ministry of Power, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and Ministry of New and Renewable Energy—jointly filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court on this matter. 
• India's official stance that transitioning from coal is necessary for two primary reasons: ensuring cleaner air and fulfilling commitments under the Paris Agreement. 
• Environmental lawyer noted that while coal will remain a key energy source in the short term, transitioning away from it is crucial to slow climate change. 
• India's position as a comparative example of how courts globally are states the need to move away from coal power, rather than directly linking India to South Africa's Cancel Coal case. 
• India's approach balances current energy demands with its long-term environmental obligations, a commitment to sustainable development. 
• This acknowledgment provides the role of renewable energy in achieving India's climate goals and mitigating the impacts of global warming. 

Conclusion 

 The High Court of Pretoria ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on 4th December 2023, finding that the government's coal expansion plan was unconstitutional and therefore unlawful. The Court determined that the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and the National Energy Regulator failed to demonstrate adequate consideration of environmental impacts and public health consequences, particularly concerning children's constitutional rights. This landmark ruling establishes a significant legal precedent requiring government decisions on energy policy to consider long-term environmental impacts and intergenerational justice, as mandated by Section 28 of the South African Constitution.