North-West

Gauteng

Western Cape

Kwazulu-Natal

Limpopo

Mpumalanga

Eastern Cape

Northern Cape

Free State

South Africa

To achieve mitigation, they will increase investment in hybrid vehicles 20% by 2030.

To achieve mitigation, they will invest $513 billion in electric vehicles between 2010 and 2050

NDC commits S.A. to peak emissions at a specific range between 2025 and 2050.

2009 pledge to reduce emissions 34% by 2020 and 42% by 2025.

Contribute to national emissions reductions by 5% through the transport sector by 2050.

Emissions are assumed to peak between 2020 and 2025

Expect to peak or plateau in emissions by 2025 and then decline.

They expect a 30% reduction in energy intensity by 2030 against 2000 levels.

By 2030 they expect a 33% reduction in energy consumption based on a 2000 base year.

By 2030 they expect a weighted reduction of 37% in energy consumption

By 2030 they expect a 15% energy savings against 2000 levels when accounting for structural change between sub-sectors.

Energy savings of 39% against 2000 base year.

Reudction of energy consumption by 29% against 2000 base year, average of sector improvements

The vision of the GTS is to substantially reduce GHG emissions and other environmental impacts from the transport sector by 5% by 2050.

Average total electricity distribution losses below 8% by 2030, and average non-technical losses below 0.5%.

A total of 10 PJ of electricity derived from grid-connected cogeneration plant by 2030.

A 20% reduction in the average vehicle intensity (measured in MJ/km) of the South African road vehicle fleet relative to a 2015 baseline.

A total electricity saving of 1 PJ through officially supported projects by 2030.

A cumulative total annual energy saving of 40 PJ arising from specific energy saving intervention undertaken by mining companies.

A 16% reduction in weighted mean specific energy consumption in manufacturing by 2030 relative to a 2015 baseline.

A 37% reduction in the specific energy consumption (measured as GJ annual energy consumption per m2 of lettable/habitable floor area) by 2030 relative to a 2015 baseline.

A 20% improvement in the average energy performance of the residential building stock by 2030 relative to a 2015 baseline, as measured by the energy consumption (excluding plug loads) per square meter of habitable space.

A 33% reduction in the average specific energy consumption of new household appliances purchased in South Africa by 2030 relative to a 2015 baseline.

A 30% reduction in the fossil fuel intensity of municipality vehicle fleets (measured as total fuel consumption by municipal vehicles per head of population served).

A 20% reduction in the energy intensity (measured as energy consumption per head of population served) of municipal service provision. The specific services included are streetlighting, traffic lights, water supply and wastewater treatment.

A 50% reduction in the specific energy consumption (measured as GJ annual energy consumption per m2 of occupied floor area) by 2030 relative to a 2015 baseline.

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

The application is brought by Just Share NPC, Aeon Investment Management, and Fossil Free South Africa, all shareholders in Thungela Resources Limited, challenging Thungela’s refusal to circulate and table three non-binding shareholder resolutions on climate change and related environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues at its 2023, 2024 and 2025 annual general meetings. The applicants contend that Thungela’s refusal breached sections 65(3) and 62(3)(c) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, which entitle qualifying shareholders to propose resolutions and require companies to include them in AGM notices.


The proposed resolutions concern climate change risks, governance, and Thungela’s response to its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly given that Thungela is a major producer and exporter of thermal coal. The applicants rely on scientific and policy material referenced in the founding affidavit, including the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report and South Africa’s Climate Change Act, to argue that climate change poses material financial, environmental and human rights risks that are directly relevant to shareholder decision-making.


The application emphasises that shareholder resolutions on climate change are a recognised and increasingly important mechanism for corporate accountability and transparency, both globally and in South Africa. It argues that allowing shareholders to debate and vote on climate related resolutions advances responsible corporate citizenship, informs shareholders of climate risks (including physical, transition and liability risks) and enables alignment between corporate conduct and South Africa’s constitutional environmental rights framework, particularly section 24 of the Constitution.


The applicants seek declaratory relief confirming that shareholders are legally entitled to propose and vote on climate related and non-binding resolutions, and that Thungela acted unlawfully in refusing to table them. They further argue that the dispute raises constitutional issues, including freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right to an environment not harmful to health or well-being.  

In November 2024, NGOs Earthlife Africa and groundWork filed an application for judicial review of exemptions granted by the South African Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and the National Air Quality Office (NAQO) with the Pretoria High Court. The application targets the exemptions, granted to the state-owned electricity utility Eskom, from complying with Minimum Emission Standards (MES) at eight of its coal-fired power stations. These exemptions allow Eskom to emit pollutants above the legal limit.

The plaintiff alleges that the granting of the exemptions was unlawful, as Eskom failed to submit the required, comprehensive decommissioning plans. Without these plans, the Minister and NAQO are unable to evaluate the risks associated with granted noncompliance.

The MES fall under South Africa’s National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, which aims to mitigate harmful emissions and pollutants that impact public health and climate change mitigation efforts.
A ruling is pending from the Pretoria High Court. Earthlife Africa and groundWork v. The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment of the Republic of South Africa (South Africa, High Court of Pretoria)

In South Africa, the Green Connection NPC and Natural Justice (herein the applicants), initiated a review application against the decision of the Director General of the Department of Minerals and Energy (the DG) and the Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (the Minister) granting an environmental authorisation to conduct exploratory drillings off the South-West coast of South Africa. The application is based on the ground that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) utilized by the DG and Minister to inform their decision did not adhere to the stipulated requirements outlined in the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) and the Integrated Coastal Management Act 24 of 2001 (ICMA).

The issue is whether the decision to grant environmental authorization to conduct exploratory drilling off the South-West coast should be set aside in that it was taken without proper assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed project. In praying for the authorization to be set aside, it is the contention of the applicants that the decision to grant environmental authorization was made without a thorough assessment of the environmental ramifications of the proposed project, as the EIR fails to meet the standards set forth by NEMA and ICMA. The EIR failed to consider climate change impacts associated with the use of any oil or gas discovered by the Proposed Project and to evaluate potential trans-boundary impacts of an oil spill resulting from a well blowout, particularly concerning contamination in Namibian waters and international waters. It does not adequately assess the extent of socio-economic impacts, including potential revenue losses for fishing operations and coastal communities in the area. The authorisation itself flouts section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa which guarantees the right to a healthy environment, protected for present and future generations. It infringes on the environmental impact assessment principles in National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) enacted to give effect to the constitutional rights related to environmental protection. Consequently, the decisions made regarding the environmental authorization for the proposed project are legally flawed and subject to review and potential reversal under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).
In relation to jurisdiction, GREEN CONNECTION NPC and NATURAL JUSTICE   assert that the requirements for loca standi and jurisdiction have been satisfied, in that the application is brought in their own interest, in the public interest in terms of section 38(1)(c) of the Constitution and section 32(1)(d) of NEMA and in the interest of protecting the environment in terms of section 32(1)(e) of NEMA, and that the adverse effects of the decisions under review will be experienced in the Western Cape. Hence, the Court has jurisdiction in terms of section 1 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA).

The Western Cape High Court has heard the case, and TotalEnergies told the court that there is a 1 in 7,000 chance of an oil spill occurring from the block. The company still holds environmental permits for the block, but is looking to transfer the majority of its interests to Shell and PetraSA. 

The High Court reviewed the lawfulness of the environmental authorization (EA) granted to TotalEnergies (with Shell as co-holder) for offshore exploratory drilling in Block 5/6/7 off South Africa’s south-west coast. The applicants challenged the EA under PAJA on several grounds, including failures to properly assess socio-economic impacts of a potential oil spill, failures to consider climate change impacts (particularly downstream emissions), failures to consider the Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICMA), and omissions in spill contingency planning. The decisions under review were the Director-General’s grant of the EA and the Minister’s dismissal of the internal appeal.

The Court held that the environmental impact assessment process was legally deficient. It found that while a catastrophic well blowout and oil spill were identified as low-probability but high-impact risks, the Final Environmental Impact Report failed to properly quantify and assess the socio-economic consequences of such an event, especially for fishing communities and coastal livelihoods. This omission breached NEMA and the EIA Regulations, which require assessment of all potentially significant impacts and risks, including low-probability, high-harm scenarios. As a result, the decision-makers failed to consider relevant considerations, rendering the EA unlawful and reviewable.

On climate change, the Court accepted that the Final EIR failed to assess the climate impacts associated with the burning of any oil or gas discovered, i.e. downstream (Scope 3) emissions. It rejected the notion that climate impacts could be ignored at the exploration stage and affirmed that climate change consequences are a relevant consideration under NEMA’s sustainability and precautionary principles. The failure to assess climate change impacts meant the decision-makers could not properly evaluate the need and desirability of the project, undermining the constitutional obligation to protect the environment for present and future generations.

The Court set aside the environmental authorization and the Minister’s appeal decision, holding that they were taken in breach of mandatory statutory duties. It emphasized the precautionary principle, the need for rigorous assessment of climate and socio-economic harm, and the constitutional centrality of environmental protection. The judgment reinforces that offshore fossil-fuel projects must confront climate change impacts explicitly and transparently at the authorization stage, not defer them to later phases.

On April 8, 2021, two environmental groups filed a petition for review of South Africa's Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment’s authorization of the Richards Bay 3000MW gas-fired power plant. Plaintiffs are the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA) and groundWork. They allege that the Environmental Impact Assessment of the project included an inadequate assessment of its climate impacts, in that it failed to account for the full life-cycle emissions of natural gas. Plaintiffs allege that the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas is worse than coal and oil on a climate-relevant 20-year timescale, and that alternatives like renewable energy were not given adequate consideration. They seek a court decision setting aside government approvals of the power plant. 

Geography

South Africa

Recent cases