1. DEVELOPING THE NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE POLICY MASHUDU MUNDALAMO CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION SECTOR COORDINATION UNIT [email_address] 012 310 3414 Presented at the RPMASA Workshop @ Midrand 19 August 2010
2.
3. WG I: The physical science basis Global mean temperature Global average sea level Northern hemisphere snow cover Warming of the climate system is unequivocal
4. Global mean temperatures are rising faster with time Period Rate 50 0.128 0.026 Years /decade 100 0.074 0.018 Warmest 12 years: 1998,2005,2003,2002,2004,2006, 2001,1997,1995,1999, 1990 ,2000
11. Two Scenarios: Growth without Constraints and Required by Science - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 2045 2048 Mt CO 2 -equivalent Required by Science Current Dev Path Growth without Constraints THE GAP Gap: difference between where emissions might go and where they need to go (GWC – RBS, emissions in 2050) Gap is 1300 Mt CO2-eq in 2050 More than three times 2003 annual emissions 2050
12.
13. With the conclusion of the technical work, the LTMS moved into a “high-level” process. LTMS way forward
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal , as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level.
SA’s share of global CO2 emissions (energy and LULUCF): ANNUAL – 1.1% CUMULATIVE (1950-2000): 0.9% - so cumulative is not great, but best of a bad bunch, from SA’s perspective We’re in trouble, whichever way you count it. The World in 2004 produced about 49 000 Megatons CO2-equiv [1] , mainly from energy generation and deforestation. In comparison South Africa produces about 440 Mt, or about 1% of the global figure. On any basis, South Africa’s emissions are large relative to its population and economy. South Africa has a coal-based energy economy, which has historically had relatively low energy prices supporting energy-intensive industries such as minerals beneficiation. As the table shows, our emissions intensity is high compared to major developing and developed countries. Our emissions per capita are high compared to China and India, the latter two also being coal-based energy economies, and also compared to Brazil – until one includes emissions due to changes in land use, notably deforestation. South Africa is therefore in a difficult position in relation to some proposed climate regimes. Some countries argue – on the basis of equity – for allocation of emission allowances on a per capita basis. South Africa already exceeds the global average. Other proposals for developing countries are based on emissions intensity. Again, given our high relative emissions intensity, this is not likely to be a favourable approach for South Africa.
Growth without Constraints SA successfully implements ASGISA and growth objectives This is the reference case Emissions in Growth without Constraints grow almost four-fold Required by Science Emissions need to peak and decline -30% to -40% by 2050 (of base year levels, 2003) Lower line: collective bottom line Upper: some differentiation, or a “developing country discount” Strategies are then adopted to achieve this objective over time The Gap needs to be bridged by combining various wedges
OVERVIEW: Two scenarios: GWC and RBS Four strategic options: Start Now, Scale Up, Use the Market, Reach for the Goal IN DETAIL: TWO SCENARIOS 1. GWC is t he first of two Scenarios; story is “what if SA had no carbon constraint, no climate impacts” This is now our second 2. Required by Science (RBS) is the 2 nd scenario, story is “what if we could achieve what Science requires of us? IN DETAIL: FOUR STRATEGIC OPTIONS: 1. Start Now: Start with mitigation actions (implemented through state action) with good economic reasons and other sustainable development co-benefits. As a package this option saves money over time. ‘Net negative cost’ wedges need money upfront, but save more over time. Lots of energy efficiency. 2. Scale Up: Increased level of ambition. Goes beyond ‘net negative cost’ into positive cost territory – can be thought of as “Energy Efficiency plus”. Scalinp up here approximates use of regulatory instruments. 3. Use the Market: Also scale up, but using economic instruments – taxes and incentives promote the uptake of the accelerated technologies and social behaviour. The key driver of is a CO2 tax – directly affect energy supply (use of fossil fuels) and indiect on demand side. Tax levels up to R 100 – 200 / t CO2 show increasing mitigation. Recycling of tax revenue is critical to economic impacts. 4. Reach for the Goal: In first three Strategic Options, a ‘golden triangle’ remains - some time from the middle of the period, emissions continue to rise again. Reason: unknown technologies and behavioural changes Four sets of actions are suggested – (a) new technologies; (b) resource identification (e.g. hydro, gas ); (c) People-oriented measures: Incentivised behaviour change; and (d) Transition to a low-carbon economy
![DEVELOPING THE NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE POLICY MASHUDU MUNDALAMO CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION SECTOR COORDINATION UNIT [email_address] 012 310 3414 Presented at the RPMASA Workshop @ Midrand 19 August 2010](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ccpolicyprogresspresentation1-12864579278248-phpapp02/85/climate-change-response-policy-progress-1-320.jpg)
![THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE ,[object Object],[object Object]]()