The writing is on the wall for the more than 190 government leaders, pampered delegates, international organizations and civil society groups who are scheduled to meet in Durban, South Africa to assess progress in dealing with climate change and negotiations for a plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This, the 17th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC/COP17), more commonly referred to as ‘COP 17-CMP 7’, takes place from on 28 November 2011. An estimated 20-30 000 people are expected to take part in the conference. It is a complex gathering of minds and every country will be pushing its own national interests. The backdrop is one of a world that is facing a stark reality of unprecedented tsunamis and hurricanes. Coastal nations are flooding. People are being displaced by the millions due to climate-related disasters. Climate scientists and environmental activists, aided by bloggers are extremely vocal about the urgency of this matter. And it seems the established global media, as represented by the various print and broadcasting networks, have woken up to the ominous challenge facing the world – even as questions arise on the role of journalism and media and how these have framed the debate on climate change, food security and overall global sustainability. Climate Change in South Africa For South Africa, the potential changes in climate and the likely impacts on society and the economy are significant. The country lies within a drought belt and without strategies in place for adapting to a change of this magnitude, the country’s agricultural economy, a major contributor to the Gross National Product (GDP), will be severely disrupted, ultimately giving rise to severe social and environmental problems. Climate science predicts that high temperatures and reduction in rainfall will impact negatively the already depleted water resources and will increase the number and severity of droughts in the country. Productivity of climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture and forestry will be reduced as a consequence, causing desertification and potentially reducing biodiversity. Furthermore, increases in sea temperature could alter migratory patterns of marine fisheries in South Africa’s coastal areas; increase the occurrence of harmful algae blooms that cause mass deaths of fish, and other aquatic animals and birds. And then there is the possible social dimension to do with areas prone to water-borne diseases such as malaria and bilharzia. The already high prevalence in the country will likely be worsened. In a nutshell, climate change is literally a life-and-death concern – not just for South Africa but for the whole of mankind.
In August 1997, South Africa ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Mitigating climate change Notably, however, South Africa was one of the first countries in the world to acknowledge the links between development and climate change mitigation. Right from the onset of the new political dispensation in 1994, South Africa established the National Committee on Climate Change (NCCC), as an advisory body. In August 1997, South Africa ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process, a further testimony of a more strategic approach to climate change mitigation and adaptation. The overall objective of the UNFCCC is to reduce emissions to the atmosphere – of greenhouse gases (GHG) – to ‘a level that would prevent dangerous…interference with the climate system’. Soon after South Africa had acceded to the UNFCCC process, the country took its commitment further and participated in international negotiations that led to the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol. The SA government ratified the Kyoto Protocol in July 2002. Negotiating a compromise The broad SA position so far is that all parties should ratify and renew their commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, the only existing legally-binding treaty on limiting emissions. Signing off a second round of the Kyoto Protocol commitment or a similar regime is not going to be easy. An amendment to extend or replace the Kyoto Protocol requires all parties to the treaty to independently ratify it by 31 December 2012 to prevent a regulatory vacuum. So far, the parties have been unable to reach a new agreement. The protocol’s fine print allows for only 55 countries to bring it into force, including wealthy nations that are responsible for 55 per cent of the developed world’s 1990 levels of carbon dioxide emissions. The United States with its 36.1 per cent slice of carbon dioxide from the developed-world are not party to the protocol, while Australia has publicly stated its opposition to ratification, and a similar reluctance from Russia. Strong headwinds are expected from Japan and Canada, and the fact that leading emerging economies of China and India are also not part of it compounds the challenge. African countries are working together under the African Union for a common position to push for the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol. They are also demanding reparations for damage done to their territories by CO2 emissions from industrial nations are loud and clear. A ‘climate mitigation and adaptation fund’ has already been mooted. Thus South Africa as the incoming COP President faces multiple challenges. First, the country must facilitate an outcome that balances the interests of many developed countries who favor “incremental progress” under the Convention on one hand and developing countries supported by developed allies that support the 2nd commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol on the other. Whatever the compromise, the challenge is to find a middle road that will protect the integrity of the process – one that will not undermine the development imperatives as well as climate change vulnerabilities of poor countries and emerging economies. The global energy picture is gloomy In South Africa, providing electricity is not only about sustainable development and poverty alleviation. It is also a challenge of climate protection and the opportunity presented for improved integration of clean energy into South Africa’s energy mix. And there exists problematic implications for environmentally and socially sustainable development in South Africa. These call for trade-offs between increasing South Africa’s electricity generation capacity and reducing its greenhouse gas emissions (as laid out in the country’s national Long-Term Mitigation Scenarios) that must be reconciled. Coal-fired plants in a warming world In an attempt to extend access to electricity to a very large historically disadvantaged majority and to support economic development and reduce poverty, South Africa has chosen among other options, cheaper coal-fired generation as the most viable long-term option. Construction of the Medupi coal plant for which a $3.75 billion World Bank loan was secured has already begun, and contracts for key components have been signed. This is just one of more than five large scale coal plants that Eskom proposed to build as part of the country’s 20-year Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for the electricity sector. Ironically, coal-fired plants in a warming world stand in direct conflict with SA’s global carbon emissions pledge. Policy makers argue, however, that until clean power technologies reach full price parity with fossil fuels, uncomfortable trade-offs will have to be made in an effort to protect poor ratepayers in developing countries. Renewable energy option SA seriously lags behind in terms implementing renewable energy options. The country’s Integrated Resource Plan does make mention the prohibitive costs generally associated with low carbon options, but does not acknowledge the risks of continued dependence on coal-fired power. Stakeholders argue the approach needs to be revisited through open, fact-based debate on all available energy options. According to the South African Wind Energy Association (SAWEA), the country has a total 8 wind turbines compared to Germany that has 20 000. Further, SA has not a single grid-connected solar PV or solar thermal power. In short, it can be argued the country generally lags behind in terms of actual implementation of alternative low-carbon development options. Debating Nuclear Electricity The government has, nonetheless, among other options, proposed nuclear energy. This option, though associated with other risk factors such as production and technology maintenance costs, best aligns with the climate mitigation goal of reducing carbon emissions. According to the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (NECSA), nuclear electricity generation is the only viable base load option to combat climate change through reduced CO2 emissions. Nuclear power generation presents additional concerns. To put this argument in some perspective – many countries are reluctant to build new reactors. Germany has de-commissioned seven of its oldest plants, and voted to close down all of its nuclear reactors by 2022, and Italy held a massively popular referendum to halt any plans of building any nuclear power plants. Switzerland, likewise, is considering plans to shut down all five of its reactors by the year 2035, and China will not be approving new plants until further notice. Instead, South Africa is forging ahead with its nuclear plans. Paradoxically – the week after the earthquake and tsunami triggered the Fukushima nuclear crisis in Japan, South Africa’s cabinet ratified the government’s Integrated Resource Plan that includes nuclear power in its energy mix. The government view is not without its supporters. There is a school of thought advanced by the Coega Development Corporation and others who argue that ‘renewable and nuclear energy are not mutually exclusive and both have a role to play in reducing the carbon footprint’. While the SA government has often indicated that the future capacity requirement could, in theory, be met without nuclear energy, this would increase the risk to security of supply (from a dispatch point of view and being subject to future fuel uncertainty). But according to Energy Caucus – out of all technologies renewable energy provides the most jobs and nuclear energy the least. However, the most general consensus from all energy sectors is that renewable energy reduces carbon emissions, resulting in alignment with SA’s international obligations and reduction of domestic social and economic impacts from emissions. This is why the hosting of COP 17 presents SA with an opportunity to showcase its green energy options – more so than many other developing countries after making a voluntary pledge on emissions reduction at the 2009 Copenhagen talks. SA pledged to lower its greenhouse gas emissions 34% before 2020 and 42% by 2025, subject to financial and other help.
Onetruemedia YouTube video – Save The Earth To Save your Life
Will COP17 produce a credible outcome for SA? Yes, world leaders are muddling through. The scientific case to cut emissions to 25%-40% below 1990 levels and 80%-90% by 2050 has not been challenged by any of the COP countries; and there is consensus by the major emitters on the basic cut of 14%-19%. The US, a major emitter has begun to participate at these meetings at the level of head of state – a far cry from the ‘snub’ witnessed in previous UN climate summits. Now, if one considers the past in which some of the major emitters refuted the scientific data outright and refused to consider local initiatives to reduce emissions, COP17 is a step in the right direction – albeit a small step. Broadly speaking, there is a profound shift in global geopolitics in favor of multilateral environmental governance, not only as a priority, but as the current driver of the many success stories in which several developing countries have scaled up renewable power in recent years. Of course, China gets a lot of attention, but the trend is much broader than that. The Renewables 2010 Global Status Report counts 45 developing countries with renewable energy targets and 42 with some sort of promotion policy.
– By Tula Dlamini: SABC News Research and Policy Analysis
