The launch of the Cancel Coal court case was preceded by many years of civil society engagement and public participation with South Africa's Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity  (IRP).

Civil society organisations had long been saying and arguing that any inclusion of new coal in South Africa's IRP is unconstitutional due to the unjustifiable health and climate impacts, in addition to other environmental harms caused by coal-fired power in South Africa. Additionally, they argued that previous drafts of the IRP made it very clear that new coal-fired power was not part of a lease-cost plan — those were merely policy adjustments by the government.

So there had been many engagements and submissions of comments by civil society organisations, including groundWork – an applicant in the Cancel Coal court case – arguing and telling the government that if they published a final IRP with new coal-fired power with coal in it, they would have no other option but to challenge that decision.

Once the IRP was published, the applicants in the court case, had requested the government to provide reasons and information about what they had considered and on what basis they decided that it was justifiable to put new coal capacity in this plan.

When adequate reasons weren’t forthcoming, and when it became clear that there wasn't going to be a justifiable basis for these plans, the applicants proceeded to launch the case.

No. We are only challenging the South African government’s plans to introduce 1500 MW of new coal-fired power electricity.

Firstly, toxic air pollution that is emitted from coal-fired power stations can lead to disease, death and disability. Health conditions can include lung cancer, ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, strokes, lower respiratory infection, as well as chronic bronchitis and asthma. This pollution can also cause preterm births.

These health impacts, in turn, result in affected people not being able to attend at work, or having to be let go as a result of disabilities. In the case where they are breadwinners and supporting family members, this income is no longer available, which adds to poverty as well as mental health impacts for people whose lives are severely disrupted.

Access to healthcare through the public health system is limited, which contributes to socio-economic vulnerability for impacted people and communities.

Secondly, we need to consider the more indirect but very severe health impacts that come from climate change. Coal-fired power is one of the leading greenhouse gas emitting activities in South Africa and is therefore directly responsible for much of the country’s contribution to climate change.

Climate change health impacts are many and varied, including impacts from heat waves and extreme heat conditions, floods, and other severe weather events as well as the increase and intensity of the spread of a range of diseases as a result of the warming climate.

All of these impacts will also have direct mental health impacts. It is also widely recognised that mental health can be compromised as a result of anxiety around climate change and the severe disruption and suffering that will materialise should the climate crisis not be addressed urgently and decisively.

The government appears to support continuing the exploitation of coal for electricity generation purposes, because the country does have substantial coal reserves and it is of the belief that these should continue to be utilised.

It however does not make sense to do so, because of the climate and health harms as well as the excessive use of water resources. Given that there are alternatives, it does not make sense to be pro-coal when all of these factors are taken into account.

If this court case is won, based on the reasons that we have put forward to justify that the decision to procure new coal-fired power is not administratively just, then the state's decisions and reasons to procure new coal-fired power will have been proven to be wrongful, and this will very likely support future arguments in opposition to new coal-fired power.

More immediately, it will mean that the current plans to procure new coal-fired power will be halted, and the government will need to go back and rethink how it plans to obtain the necessary electricity generation capacity.

A further positive impact from winning the case would be that the rights of children and future generations, when it comes to the making of decisions that will impact them, and particularly in relation to climate change, will be upheld by the court and create a precedent to ensure that decision makers adequately consult with youth in these types of decisions in the future.

It will also mean that the court has considered the arguments put forward that new coal-fired power, in addition to its harmful impacts, is not a rational choice from the perspective of cost and employment creation potential.

Ultimately, a win of this nature will help ensure that we, as a society represented by the state, will be making cleaner, healthier, and economically sustainable choices around electricity generation.

No, mine workers are not likely to be affected directly if we win this court case, because the court case relates to coal-fired electricity generation that does not yet exist.

This case does not focus on the closure of existing coal-fired power stations. Although, we need these to be closed down at a pace and scale that is appropriate for the country and also responsive to the climate crisis as well as the health impact crisis that currently exists in the relevant areas.

Across the world, many countries are moving away from coal-fired power due to the harmful consequences, which means that mine workers will be affected in due course. This is why it's important that a just transition is adequately and effectively implemented.

No, it certainly does not. If the utilisation of coal was so good for development, then we need to ask ourselves why we still have immense challenges such as poverty, inequality, and unemployment.

One of the expert reports being relied on by the applicants in the Cancel Coal court case clearly demonstrates how a least-cost electricity generation option, based on renewable energy, would create twice the employment opportunities than a new coal-fired power station. It would also result in substantially cheaper electricity. The higher potential for jobs and the potential to ensure that electricity is delivered more cheaply to users are both supportive of development.

In addition, the South African Renewable Energy Master Plan lays out a pathway for substantially increased industrialisation around renewable energy and this could create many jobs and businesses which will ensure that economic opportunities are distributed to more people.

These jobs will also be clean and healthy with world-leading resources for renewable energy such as solar and wind. South Africa is well-placed to create an entirely new sector which can reduce unemployment and improve socio-economic well-being of people in the country.

No. In fact, the job creation potential of building renewable energy instead of the new coal is well demonstrated in the report by the Energy Systems Research Group, which is relied on in the applicant's legal arguments.

In addition, committing to a future electricity system based more strongly on renewable energy can provide opportunities to create industries, employment, and value chains which could benefit new job seekers as well as those currently employed by the coal value chain.

Green jobs can mean many different things. Employment opportunities can be created within the renewable energy value chain around manufacturing of components for solar, wind and battery storage.

But there are many more broader applications and green jobs could also include activities such as much needed mine rehabilitation and the regeneration of ecosystems. This would not only improve local environmental conditions and create better, more dignified human settlements, but also serve to provide important climate change mitigation and adaptation of natural infrastructure.

In the mid- to long-term, cancelling new coal will help to prevent situations such as load shedding in future.

Much of the load shedding that we are experiencing at this point in time is because we have an old and increasingly faulty fleet of coal-fired power stations that require extensive maintenance and are increasingly expensive to run.

The cases of Medupi and Kusile have shown us that new coal-fired power is far from a simple and effective solution, with both of these projects taking much longer than planned and costing substantially more than the original expected price.

In contrast, renewable energy is quick and easy to build and much cheaper to maintain as there are also no ongoing fuel costs to be considered. So, the possibility that a renewable energy heavy electricity system is much less likely to result in load shedding is very high.

Renewable energy has already proved itself to be highly effective and is starting to become an increasingly dominant source of electricity generation around the world. It is quick to build, cheaper than any other source, and also very reliable once it is installed.

The Presidential Climate Commission, in its Electricity Planning Report of 2022, recommends that South Africa build 50 to 60 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2030. This would mostly be solar photovoltaic as well as wind, backed up by electricity and other storage systems to ensure that power is available even in adverse weather conditions.

A just transition is an approach that ensures that no one is left behind in the country's journey to a decarbonised society and economy.

In very obvious terms, this means that workers in the coal value chain should be redeployed into cleaner and greener jobs, such as in the renewable energy value chain, as well as important accompanying activities such as mine rehabilitation and ecosystem regeneration.

It means that vulnerable communities, as well as small businesses that are dependent on the existing system, need to be taken into account to ensure that the benefits that can result from decarbonisation are spread in a fair and equitable manner across different role players.

If we don't win the court case, we need to continue to fight for climate justice, ensuring that South Africa responds to the climate crisis adequately. We need to continue protecting the rights of affected communities, ensuring that air pollution laws are adhered to and that local environments do not continue to be destroyed through coal mining for coal-fired electricity generation.