One wonders how a large State utility like Eskom has been able to buck the system for so long and turn a blind eye to air-pollution legislation.

While the technology is there to minimise emissions, offending organisations see the solutions as unaffordable.

Coal is going to have to be burnt for some time, which is why measures need to be introduced that lower climate and health risk.

The US Energy Information Administration states that, when coal is burnt, there are six main problems. Sulphur dioxide (SOx) emissions contribute to acid rain and respiratory illnesses; nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions bring smog and respiratory illnesses; particulates add haze, respiratory illnesses and lung disease; carbon dioxide changes the climate; mercury does neurological damage; and fly ash demands storage space.

Against that background, the banks have taken a laudable stand by refusing to fund any additional assets that are fossil-fuel linked.

Pressure is growing on South Africa to rely less on coal for power and more on help from the sun and the wind. The ‘Carbon Watch’ global report, which states that South Africa is using 3% less coal, is worth noting.

Encouraging, too, was a report in Mining Weekly to the effect that the mining industry is showing a keen interest in cleaner ventilation systems for underground mines.

It makes so much sense to prevent dangerous fumes from pervading underground areas, where air is already scarce. The mines are aware of the need to move fast on health issues because they already have the silicosis lawsuits on their hands. Replacing unhealthy underground equipment with healthy underground equipment seems a no-brainer.

But too much is still happening below the radar and far greater transparency is needed.

It seems like an age since attention was first drawn to the wanton emission of SOx and NOx in the power station region of Mpumalanga.

There also needs to be more compliance. It is concerning that an air polluter as substantial as Sasol failed to provide more clarity on its climate strategy at its latest annual general meeting.

The Centre for Environmental Rights deserves a pat on the back for chivvying up corporate South Africa towards greater climate positivity. Using a recognised benchmark, the environmental rights group assessed 15 Johannesburg-listed companies and, in the main, found them wanting.

While 10 of the 15 companies and banks assessed had identified climate change as posing a material business risk, only three had set out the potential short-, medium- and long-term impacts to their business, strategy and financial planning – and all three were mining companies.

Large mining companies have exposure to what is taking place worldwide and they know what an issue climate change has become and the lawsuits that could follow.

More insular companies need to buck up and follow suit.