Presentation to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee for Water and Environmental Affairs, 29 March 2011, Parliament, Cape Town

Transcription

1 Presentation to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee for Water and Environmental Affairs, 29 March 211, Parliament, Cape Town

2 If we do not know where we are going, we could claim a step in any direction as progress (Overheard during a robust discussion on the Presidency s outcome based approach to prioritisation, planning and reporting) Set a target for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as part of our responsibility to protect the environment and promote sustainable development, and to participate in sharing the burden with the global community under a common framework of action (One of the climate change resolutions of the ANC s 52 nd National Conference in Polokwane in 27)

3 Presentation overview The mitigation challenge the South African Greenhouse Gas (GHG) profile A quick introduction to Arithmophobia Concerns around the numbers. The non numbers The Long Term Mitigation Scenarios (LTMS) Required by Science trajectory our aspirational goal Cabinet s 28 peak, plateau and decline directive The 29 Copenhagen Undertaking Finding a definition that is sensitive to the concerns. A possible way forward.

4 South Africa s GHG profile (2)

5 South Africa s GHG profile Energy Emissions

6 South Africa s GHG profile Fuel Combustion Energy Industries

7 South Africa s GHG profile Initial update figures

8 Arithmophobia Fear of Numbers Arithmophobia is also known as 'numerophobia'. Having a fear of numbers has an adverse effect on the persons who suffer from it. It hampers them from carrying on with their normal day to day activities. People who suffer from the fear of numbers find it difficult to learn anything that is related to arithmetic and mathematics. This fear of numbers could have been brought on by an unpleasant experience or situation in the past. The effect of which has been so severe that the body has developed a phobia for anything related to that situation The brain simply stops receiving information that is associated with that topic.

9 Concerns around the numbers The word Target is forbidden in Non Annex I UNFCCC Party negotiation speak it is regarded as sacrilege for a developing country to even talk about absolute mitigation numbers If the numbers are completely wrong, e.g. they are completely and utterly unobtainable, this will cause both national and international embarrassment when we cannot meet them Even if the numbers are theoretically attainable, if we fail to meet the numbers adequately, this will cause both national and international embarrassment Committing ourselves to specific numbers will tell the world that we are going it alone and that we don t need their support

10 What we have called the numbers Our Aspirational Goal 27 LTMS consensus around the Required by Science GHG trajectory Greenhouse gas emission reduction targets the ANC s 27 climate change resolution calling a spade a spade Our desired mitigation trajectory used in some 28 internal government briefing documents Our Greenhouse gas reduction and limits used in relation to Cabinet s 28 peak, plateau and decline policy directive Our mitigation undertaking or our level of effort the 29 Copenhagen Undertaking

11 Conditions and the numbers Cabinet s 28 illustrated peak, plateau and decline trajectory would constitute a fair and meaningful contribution to the global efforts, demonstrating leadership in the multi lateral system by committing to a substantial deviation from baseline, enabled by international funding and technology South Africa reiterates that it will take nationally appropriate mitigation action the extent to which this action will be implemented depends on the provision of financial resources, the transfer of technology and capacity building support by developed countries. Annexure to the Copenhagen Accord

12 Conditions and the numbers (Cont.) South Africa committed at Copenhagen to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 34% by 22 and 42% by 225 below business as usual, on condition that it receives the necessary finance, technology and support from the international community that will allow it to achieve this Green Paper

13 Presidency s Outcome based Approach Input- Outcome Model Input Activities Outputs Outcomes Step 4 Step 3 Step 2 Step 1 New Evaluation and Monitoring Approach How much do we need to invest to achieve the best mix of desired outcomes? Determine optimal allocation of inputs given desired outcomes Reallocate inputs if necessary Where should the system focus in order to achieve the outputs? Measure delivery of key activities that we believe will fundamentally enhance the performance of the conversion process Which priority outputs should we measure to see if we are achieving each outcome? Measure 3 5 outputs that tell us whether we are making progress in delivering the outcome Tested with internal and external experts What are the key outcomes that Government wants to achieve? Derived from ANC s Manifesto, MTSF, POA and Departments strategic plans

14 The LTMS Background Work agreed at the 25 National Climate Change Conference Cabinet approved process and the work, managed by the DEA and implemented by UCT s Energy Research Centre (ERC), was initiated in 26 Multi stakeholder Scenario Building Team (SBT) established in August 26 Energy Emissions (ERC modeling), Non Energy Emissions (CSIR), Economy wide research (UCT economics) and Climate Change Impacts (SANBI) Research teams commissioned Technical work signed off by SBT on 24 October 27

15 The LTMS The SBT Government DEAT Environment DME Minerals & Energy DST Science & Technology DoT Transport Treasury Foreign Affairs DTI Trade & Industry DPE Public Enterprises DWAF Water Affairs & Forestry Presidency SAWS Weather Service CEF / SA Nat l Energy Research Institute NERSA Energy Regulator W Cape Province (DEADP) City of Johannesburg Dept of Agriculture ARC Business & Industry SASOL Eskom EIUG Energy Intensive Users Group Engen Grain SA Anglo Coal BHP Billiton Chamber of Mines Aluminium AFSA Kumba Resources Chemical CAIA Engen Forestry SA AgriSA Business Unity SA Sappi Envirotech (Waste) Civil Society EcoCity/CURES Groundwork SESSA Labour (COSATU) SEA SACAN COSATU SALGA WWF SA Earthlife Africa NEDLAC

16 LTMS Small mitigation wedges 1 5 Affore sta tion R Manure m anagem ent -R Ente ric fe rm e nta tion R Synfuels methane R Reduced tillage R Aluminium R 1 5 Limit less eff. vehicles -R 4, Synfuels CCS 2 Mt R Coal mine methane R 346

17 LTMS Medium mitigation wedges 5 SWH subsidy 5 CCS 2 Mt 5 Commercial efficiency R 28 Biofuel subsidy 25 5 Hybrids R R 23 Waste management 25 R R 1, R Synfuels CCS 23 Mt 5 25 R 15 Fire control -R Biofuels R 524 Passenger modal shift -R 1, Electric vehicles in GWC grid R 67 Residential efficiency -R Cleaner coal -R 5

18 LTMS Big mitigation wedges 3 15 Im proved vehicle efficiency -R 269 Renew ables, extended 3 15 R 92 Subsidy for rene w able s 3 15 R Nuclear, extended R Nucle ar R Renew ables R Electric vehicles w ith nuclear, renew ables R 12 Escalating CO2 tax 6 Renewables with learning, 3 extended 15 R R Industrial efficiency -R 3 4

19 The LTMS Mitigation wedges

20 LTMS The findings Escalating CO2 tax Industrial efficiency R 34 -R 34 3 Nuclear, Renewables extended R R 2 R 52 Subsidy for renewables 3 Renewables, Nuclearextended R R 92 R 18 Biofuel subsidy 3 Passenger Synfuels modal CCS 23 shift Mt 15 3 R R 54 -R 1,131 Electric Improved SWH vehicles subsidy in efficiency GWC grid R 28 R 67 -R 269

21 LTMS GWC and RBS numbers The LTMS Growth Without Constraints (GWC) scenario may be summarised as 22 ~749 Mt CO 2 eq /annum; 225 ~872 Mt CO 2 eq /annum; 23 ~15 Mt CO 2 eq /annum; 235 ~1157 Mt CO 2 eq /annum; 25 ~1639 Mt CO 2 eq /annum The Required by Science (RBS) scenario may be summarised as 22 ~46 Mt CO 2 eq /annum; 225 ~453 Mt CO 2 eq /annum; 23 ~436 Mt CO 2 eq /annum; 235 ~411 Mt CO 2 eq /annum; 25 ~268 Mt CO 2 eq /annum

22 LTMS SBT Consensus Growth Without Constraints is an unacceptable trajectory Current Development Paths will not significantly change the unacceptable Growth Without Constraints trajectory Required By Science should be our aspirational goal

23 Cabinet s 28 peak, plateau and decline directive In terms of Government s July 28 Climate Change Policy Directions, GHG mitigation interventions should be informed by, and monitored and measured against the following peak, plateau and decline emission trajectory Greenhouse gas emissions stop growing (start of plateau) in 22 25; and Greenhouse gas emissions begin declining in absolute terms (end of plateau) in 23 35

24 Cabinet s 28 peak, plateau and decline directive

25 The Copenhagen Undertaking On Sunday, 6 December 29, The President announced that South Africa would undertake a range of voluntary nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) South Africa s undertaking to ensure that the country s emissions deviate below the business as usual baseline by around 34% by 22 and by 42% by 225. This level of effort would enable emissions to peak between 22 and 225, plateau for approximately a decade and decline in absolute terms thereafter (the Presidency, 29)

26 The Copenhagen Undertaking (Cont.) Based on the LTMS s Growth Without Constraints (GWC) scenario, the only widely publicised business as usual baseline to date, South Africa s 6 December 29 undertaking may be translated into an estimated South African GHG emission trajectory to 225 as follows 22 ~494 Mt CO 2 eq /annum; 225 ~56 Mt CO 2 eq /annum.

27 The National Climate Change Response Green Paper South Africa will implement the following strategies in order to achieve its climate change response objective The prioritisation of mitigation interventions that significantly contribute to a peak, plateau and decline emission trajectory where greenhouse gas emissions peak in 22 to 225 at 34% and 42% respectively below a business as usual baseline, plateau to 235 and begin declining in absolute terms from 236 onwards

28 Putting it all together

29 Conclusions Since our first inventory with base year 199, ur GHG emissions have increased from 35 to ~542 Mt CO 2 eq/annum in 21, i.e. a 55% increase. Despite the criticism of the LTMS from some quarters, actual emissions are very closely aligned with predictions based on the 1994 GHG inventory for Growth Without Constraints and Current Development Path Not surprisingly, at our current emission level of ~542 Mt CO 2 eq /annum we have already overshot the LTMS RBS 22 and 225 minimum values of ~46 and ~453 respectively

30 Conclusions (Cont.) More disturbingly, we have also overshot the LTMS GWC based Copenhagen Undertaking values of ~494 and ~56 for 22 and 225 respectively Although we have not yet exceeded Cabinet s 28 target of ~55, our actual and forecast emissions trajectory is not promising in respect of meeting this number

31 So what? Because our current emissions trajectory does not appear to indicate a substantial deviation from baseline, should we Continue to shy away from clearly defining our desired trajectory and hope that this uncertainty will somehow motivate a substantial deviation from baseline? Move the goalposts by considering a less ambitious trajectory and hope that this reversal of our undertakings will somehow motivate a substantial deviation from baseline? Or Remove the current uncertainty around our desired trajectory and start making real plans on how to, at least, start moving in the right direction?

32 A new expression of our objectives?

33 How this new expression measures up A GHG trajectory that falls within the Business As Usual range must be regarded as BAU A GHG trajectory that falls within our desired GHG mitigation outcome range must be regarded as a significant deviation from BAU A GHG trajectory that falls outside the Business As Usual range must be regarded as a deviation from BAU

34 How could this idea be captured within the Policy? 9.2 Monitoring, verifying and Reporting Overall Mitigation Efforts In line with government s local and international undertakings and South Africa s climate change response objective, South Africa s climate change mitigation interventions are informed by, and will be monitored and measured against the following peak, plateau and decline emission trajectory, where: South Africa s greenhouse gas emissions peak in 22 to 225 at 34% and 42% respectively below a business as usual baseline [defined as annual total greenhouse gas emissions within the range of 599 to 711 Mt CO 2 eq in 22 and from 633 to 865 Mt CO 2 eq in 225]. South Africa s greenhouse gas emissions plateau from peak in 22 to 235 [and] begin declining in absolute terms from plateau levels from 236 onwards.

35 Closing remarks Although NEDLAC constituencies agreed that there needed to be more work undertaken in order to tackle [a carbon budget] approach and a process of how to achieve the sectoral targets and understanding and apportioning the carbon budget was supported, it must also be acknowledged that none of this is possible without knowing the carbon budget. The department, with the assistance of the ERC, is reviewing the LTMS Growth Without Constraints baseline in the light of developments since 27 with a view to confirming whether this baseline still provides a relatively robust estimate of South Africa s broad business as usual trajectory (This work is sometime erroneously referred to as the LTMS update ), i.e. we are confirming a level of confidence associated with the proposed monitoring benchmarks

36 So what is it all about It is about recognising that now is the time to do extraordinary things in dealing with our particular development circumstances. It requires new ideas and bold efforts from all: government, business, labour, communities and every family. We must show, across the economy, the game changing strengths we have shown on big issues, from creating our democracy to hosting Africa s first Soccer World Cup (Minister of Finance, Pravin Gordhan, 211 Budget Speech, 23 February 211)

37 Forward to a sustainable future THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION