Climate Justice or Climate Apartheid? The justice trade-offs of private solar investments for South Africa's just transition

Abstract

Climate scholarship and policy are increasingly framed by discourses of justice, acknowledging the uneven impacts of climate change, with global south countries and marginalised communities most vulnerable. Recently, ‘climate apartheid’ discourse has recognised that mitigation/adaptation strategies also (re)produce injustice. This highlights how the ‘climate privileged’ protect themselves from climate change impacts via strategies and technologies that exclude and further marginalise the ‘climate precarious’. We critically explore the value of climate apartheid discourse in South Africa, where global investment towards a just energy transition has contributed to alleviating the country’s energy crisis. South Africa’s renewable energy shift has been rapid, unprecedented, under-regulated, and highly uneven, dividing society between those with, and without, access to reliable energy. South Africa is also relevant for exploring climate apartheid as the ‘origin’ context, where reappropriating apartheid beyond its historical context is complex. Drawing on semi-structured interviews and survey responses, we examine the multifaceted motivations for, and impacts of, private household investments in renewable energy in urban South Africa. Wealthy households have shielded themselves from loadshedding (scheduled power cuts) through solar power investments, benefiting from tax incentives inaccessible to poorer households who remain dependent on an unreliable and unaffordable grid. While climate apartheid discourse highlights the gravity of South Africa’s energy divide, it risks vilifying individually rational actions and overlooks their contribution to energy transitions. We propose ‘justice trade-offs’ in recognition that climate action can drive environmental justice and social injustice, particularly at the household-scale where actions by the climate privileged may not directly and/or intentionally marginalise the climate precarious.

Article summary

This article examines how the rapid uptake of private rooftop solar in South Africa complicates aspirations for a “just energy transition.” In response to persistent electricity shortages and rising tariffs, wealthier households and businesses have increasingly installed solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. These investments improve energy reliability for PV consumers and reduce carbon emissions, contributing to climate mitigation efforts.

However, the research shows that these benefits are unevenly distributed. Because solar installations require significant upfront investment, they are largely accessible to privileged groups. As these groups reduce their reliance on municipal electricity, cities may lose important revenue streams that are traditionally used to cross-subsidise electricity access for lower-income households.

Drawing on survey data and interviews with households, government officials and private sector actors in Johannesburg and Cape Town, the paper highlights how these infrastructure choices reshape relationships between citizens, the state and energy systems. The findings demonstrate that climate actions can generate contradictory outcomes: they may simultaneously advance decarbonisation while deepening social inequality. We refer to this as a ‘justice trade-off’.

The article engages with the concept of “climate apartheid”, which refers to situations where wealthy groups are able to protect themselves from climate risks or infrastructure failures through private investments that are inaccessible to poorer populations. The paper explores the usefulness and limitations of applying ‘climate apartheid’ to contemporary energy transitions within South Africa. For example, while it is a provocative term that directs attention to the severity of climate injustice and energy inequality, it implies that privileged groups are directly to blame for unjust outcomes, thereby potentially vilifying individuals whilst absolving global investors and state inaction. Rather than presenting climate justice as a single outcome, the study argues that transitions to renewable energy involve multiple competing justice claims that policymakers must carefully navigate.

Key points

• Private solar PV adoption in South Africa has expanded rapidly as households and businesses respond to electricity shortages and rising tariffs.
• These investments contribute to decarbonisation and energy security but are largely accessible to wealthier groups.
  The growth of private solar systems may reduce municipal electricity revenues that support cross-subsidised services for poorer residents.
• Climate mitigation strategies can produce justice trade-offs, benefiting some sectors and groups, while maligning and disadvantaging others.
• The concept of “climate apartheid” highlights how climate responses may enable privileged groups to shield themselves from infrastructure and climate risks.
• Achieving a just energy transition requires recognising and managing the tensions between environmental sustainability, energy security and social equity.

This article contributes to debates on the just energy transition by demonstrating how private renewable energy investments can simultaneously advance decarbonisation while (re)producing forms of socio-spatial inequality. It shows that climate transitions must be analysed through multiple justice lenses, as actions that benefit environmental sustainability may undermine distributive and infrastructural justice in highly unequal cities.

Recommended citation