Can South Africa Become Climate Resilient Without Increasing Inequality?
- Eco-nomics
- May 10
- 3 min read
There are two things we know for sure. 1) South Africa is one of the most unequal countries in the world. 2) Climate change will hit the country’s most vulnerable people the hardest.
The wealthy will likely weather the storm - literally and figuratively. They will have the air-conditioning, shade and financial resources to avoid the worst of drought, heatwaves and many other climate change effects. However, this will not be the case for a majority of the South African population. Most people have no access to air-conditioning (only 7.4% in 2022, excluding fans), homes that are not resistant to floods, and have no hope of affording rooftop anything. Beyond these examples, the list is incredibly long on how poorer people will suffer the effects of climate change more heavily.
With those two facts being so obvious, it’s easy to overlook something else: South Africa’s efforts to adapt to climate change may actually be making inequality worse.
In other words, are we trying to race to the climate friendly finish line while simultaneously shooting ourselves in the foot?
There are two sides to this dilemma. The first is understandable, even if unfortunate: our climate adaptation policies for individuals and firms are mostly neutral on paper. Rebates for heat pumps, tax incentives for solar panels, and encouragements to “go green” are sensible steps. But who actually benefits?
Richer households can afford solar panels and heat pumps (which are expensive up front but cheaper to run) and thus receive these benefits. They end up with lower bills, fewer interruptions, and a greener conscience. Meanwhile, the rest of South Africa pays for Stage 6 loadshedding and struggles through heatwaves (which are deadlier than you may think), missing out on any meaningful benefit from government incentives they can’t afford to access.
So whilst well-meaning, these incentives unintentionally help the rich become both more eco-friendly, while leaving poorer communities stuck in place, both economically and environmentally. I firmly believe that the primary solution should not be pushing change onto individuals and firms like this, but rather for large scale change from the government aimed at the whole population.
The second side of the problem is more insidious: green gentrification.
When cities and local municipalities build resilient infrastructure and green projects like flood barriers, public parks, or bike lanes, they often are incentivised to do so where the money is. The barriers at the V&A Waterfront in Cape Town are fantastic, while most Mitchell’s Plain residents are stuck shovelling sand around their homes. Over time, this either concentrates climate protection in wealthier areas or improves under-resourced areas just enough to attract wealthier people, pricing out or displacing the residents who were supposed to benefit in the first place.
Even if no one is physically forced out, rising living costs, shifting job markets, and unaffordable services can quietly do the job. So, for many, a green future may await, but only if you can afford the entry fee. The irony in this is painful. The people most in need of protection are often in the places hardest to protect.
Even more worryingly, we don’t really know how widespread these patterns are. South Africa has very limited research on the equity impacts of climate incentives and few studies (only one I could find) on how green gentrification is playing out in our cities.
So, that leaves us with a choice. We can build a climate-resilient nation that is socially blind, or we can design it to reduce inequality, not reinforce it. That means investment from the government where it’s needed most, not just where it’s most profitable, visible, or easy.
After all, there’s no point making South Africa greener if the only people who benefit are already behind an estate gate.
P.S. This is all above and beyond the fact that the devastations of climate change will reduce living standards disproportionately more for the poor, in theory also inherently increasing inequality.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Comentários