The Thin Green Line

South African citizens could face penalties of up to ten years in prison, or a R10 million fine, for issuing any information that may be construed as a "severe weather or pollution-related warning" without written permission from the Weather Service.

This amendment, among others, is contained in a bill before Parliament that seeks to amend the South African Weather Service (SAWS) Act. Admittedly unauthorised weather warnings were made illegal in the original act, but the attempts now to make them punishable may have sinister motives.

The amendment bill also contains other offenses, including making it an offense for any person to supply false or misleading information about the SAWS and an offense to intentionally or negligently commit any act or omission which detrimentally affects or is likely to detrimentally affect the organisation.

These proposed amendments are draconian, and can be construed as an attempt by the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, the sponsor of the bill, to establish and protect an unfair monopoly on services offered by the SAWS, some of which are commercial services.

The bill, if passed in its current form, will have various undesirable consequences, and will make South Africans less safe. The bill, for example, does not contain a definition of a “severe weather event”. But we do know from climate change scientists that “extreme” weather events such as floods and tornados are likely to increase in frequency in the future. So, the need for warning systems to protect people and property is important. But the nature of such weather events, whether one calls them severe or extreme, is that they strike quickly. They can also be highly localised, that is, striking in a small area. There is no reason to believe that the SAWS, with its limited ability to measure and observe weather changes all around South Africa in real time, can respond quickly to all severe weather events, offering affected people sufficient warning. The prospect of a citizen who, for example, observes that a tornado is about to strike a settlement and wishes to issue a warning, actually receiving written permission in time from the clumsy bureaucracy that is SAWS, is highly unlikely, if not impossible. Thus the bill will make criminals of civic-minded people and organisations who offer warnings to their fellow citizens, as they will be unlikely even to seek permission to sound the warning. The proposed amendment is simply stupid law.

The Department of Environmental argues that hoax warnings over the last several years have caused panic among affected citizens, and that the amendment bill is an honest attempt to stop this. There is nothing wrong with the warnings of the SAWS being the only warnings that can be regarded as official, but the consequences of the clauses of the amendment bill are far reaching, some perhaps unintended, but some, which as I noted above, could be more sinister.

There are many informal networks of citizens around our country that observe weather changes, and offer commentary or advice on what they see or measure. They offer useful services that supplement the work of the SAWS. Many users of weather data might even regard them as more useful than the SAWS.

The official SAWS website (designed and implemented at a cost of R3.7m) does not serve all users needs. The frustrations of users of the SAWS site are regularly expressed on blogs on the internet.

The problems with the SAWS site forces many people who depend on accurate weather forecasts to use other sites, blogs and twitter feeds as their source of weather information. They choose to do so because there are many sources outside the SAWS that are more accurate and helpful for certain data.

A number of local operators provide excellent weather services for customers with specialised needs. For instance, crucial fire danger rating data may be available only from highly localised sources. Farmers need this information at the drop of a hat; it is therefore wrong that these sources may be in danger of breaking the law if they provide the information without permission. That local operators may have commercial interests in providing such services will now be deemed illegal, thanks to the monopolising effects of the bill.

Many independent organisations utilise the freely available international Noaa GFS system to make their forecasts, including severe weather warnings. The amendment bill as it stands would criminalise anyone disseminating this information without permission from the SAWS.

Many independent weather forecasters package and interpret the information for clients with unique needs, needs which often are not serviced by the SAWS website’s offerings anyway. So the SAWS want to make it difficult for others to offer services that they do not even offer.

It is no secret that since the formation of the SAWS, just under a decade ago, the entity has struggled to generate increased income from the commercial services it offers. It now turns to Parliament to give it a monopoly over these services. The Bill also gives courts the power to assess whether any person convicted of one the new offenses gained a material advantage from doing so, and if so, courts may order the award of damages or compensation. Perhaps the SAWS sees this as a potential new income stream for itself.

If implemented, the amendment bill would offer SAWS no incentive to innovate and deliver attractive new products. If the SAWS wants to succeed in a fast-paced economy, where improved communication is empowering more citizens every day, then it must develop the ability to adapt and must display its worth. The proposed Bill will crush creativity and innovation for these other networks of people that offer services in the weather field, and without the competition, the SAWS will become moribund.

The prohibition on making pollution-related warnings without official consent is also absurd. The NGOs that work in highly polluted communities such as the South Durban basin, Secunda and Sasolburg perform excellent work monitoring pollution that supplements the work of the state. They also hold the state accountable for compliance action when pollution events from big polluters such as refineries occur, and warn affected people to take precautions to prevent exposure. Why should they seek permission from the SAWS to make a warning? What if the SAWS colluded with a polluter to prevent a warning so that a polluter could escape liability? Granted, people or networks that make weather or pollution-related warnings could get their predictions wrong. But what if they are right and the effect of their warning is to save lives?

The Department appears perplexed by the public outcry and claims it has all citizens’ best interest at heart.  But the fact remains that the proposals contained in the Bill, whatever the motivation of the Department, will have a range of negative consequences.

Not only will it force some sources of weather information to go out of business, thus limiting consumer choice, but it will make it difficult for independent forecasters to issue a genuine severe weather warning. This will put the lives of citizens at risk.

Specialised weather services that provide accurate forecasts should be encouraged, not punished. They are very often more accurate than the SAWS itself. The DA will work to remove or amend the offending clauses from the Bill.

I welcome the fact that COP 17 has finally concluded with an agreement over a Durban Platform being reached. “It was clear going into this COP that some developed countries had no intent of living up to their historical responsibilities and committing to a second period of Kyoto Protocol with the levels of emission cuts required by science. The expectations for this COP were therefore unfortunately low, but thankfully we have managed to exceed those expectations by agreeing on the establishment of a Green Climate Fund; a Second Commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol and for the first time ever a tentative roadmap for the establishment of a truly global treaty that will bind all major emitting countries to emission reduction cuts.

This is however not the time for complacency as there are still numerous loopholes which need to be closed if we are going to have any chance of preventing a 2 degree warmer world and the potential devastation that will bring.

 Firstly, we need more countries besides those in the European Union to commit to ambitious reductions under the Kyoto Protocol. Now that major emitting countries from the developing world including India and China have agreed to consider an all inclusive treaty with legal force in the medium term, it is time for developed countries to step up to the plate and show that they are living up to their responsibilities in the short term. No longer can countries like the US, Canada, Russia and Japan use the excuse that they will not commit to anything unless India and China also commit to action.

The global stalemate has tentatively been broken, but in order to ensure progress, developed countries need to show that they are determined to make this work. This also needs to be expressed through real financial flows into the newly established Green Climate Fund so that developing countries can put in place measures to adapt to climate change and make the transition to a clean energy economy.

I also wish to congratulate all the delegates and the COP Presidency for having the perseverance to continue proceedings until a deal was finally reached. This has been the longest COP ever and it is testimony to all those concerned that we finally emerged with what is now dubbed the Durban Platform. Make no mistake though, the threat of a 4 degree warmer world is still very much with us, and what is ultimately needed is for the domestic political will in many countries to be significantly increased so that negotiators can come to the next COP with a far more ambitious mandate. The platform has been established, but it is going to require far greater political will than is currently evident to live up to our global commitment of keeping warming to below 2 degrees.

There are two major sets of problems that plague international environmental negotiations such as COP-17: scientifically unfounded scepticism and collective action failure. The first has some impact on the second, and thus must be decisively dealt with, while the second requires more sophistication than is currently on offer. The institution of Parliament, which is present in democracies around the world, is the vehicle with which this failure may be overcome. Few climate change analysts recognise the reasons for this. 

There is a theory in Environmental Economics known as the 'Environmental Kuznets Curve' (or EKC), which hypothesises that in the early stages of economic growth, degradation and pollution increase. Beyond a specific level of income per capita, however, the theory is that this trend reverses: high income levels and economic growth in fact lead to environmental improvement. The logical conclusion from this theory - that sustainability can be achieved without a significant deviation from ‘business as usual’ - is therefore an enticing one. And although often unstated, this mythical ‘wisdom’ informs much of the reluctance that countries have towards committing themselves to a second term under the Kyoto Protocol (which aims to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, and is at the heart of negotiations at COP-17). 

A key criticism of the EKC, however, is its incorrect assumption that environmental damage (often irreversible) will not reduce economic activity sufficiently to stop the growth process. 

Research by the United Nations (UN) International Panel on Climate Change strongly suggests that a ‘business as usual’ approach will launch us into an era of irreversibility – environmental destruction that precludes economic growth. We can scarcely afford this, especially given that it is well known that the poor will bear the brunt of avoidable climate change. Consensus amongst thinking people is that the current trajectory needs to be truncated much more rapidly. However, confronting the effort to achieve this is the second set of problems – that of divergent interests and the complexity of international negotiations. 

The United States continues to be the highest per capita emitter in the world at 19 tonnes of CO2 per person, even though its national income per person is $42,385, also amongst the highest in the world. Clearly, wealth in itself is no guarantee of CO2 reductions. China’s per capita income is $5,450 and it emits 4.7 tonnes of CO2 per person, although overall China remains the single largest emitter. South Africa, the 11th highest emitter, earns $8,857 per capita, but emits a disproportionate 9.4 tonnes of CO2 per person. 

When narrow domestic interests dictate that these kinds of emissions are a necessary evil on the road to economic growth, they become reluctant for their countries’ negotiators to agree to any globally binding protocol that may stifle this growth. This leads to a collective action problem which has to be solved more creatively than historical attempts have allowed for.

In 1988, Robert Putnam wrote a ground-breaking paper called ‘The logic of two-level games.’ Level one represented the international negotiating table, and level two, domestic politics. In this scenario, each country’s international negotiators possess a ‘win-set’, which represents the degree of room for compromise that each negotiator carries. If a country’s domestic politics are weak – with an executive that is rarely held accountable, no effective parliamentary oversight, and a weak relationship between citizen and state – that country's negotiator has a large win-set. South Africa’s negotiating team, for example – comprising government ministers and senior civil servants - is able to compromise on just about anything because its members are not truly accountable to their citizens through Parliament. 

Intuitively, one would expect that this would elevate our negotiating position at level one. However, it turns out that the negotiator who arrives at level one with a smaller win-set – less room for compromise – almost always secures a better deal for her country. The smaller win-set is primarily determined by the oversight of a strong parliament. 

Current COP negotiations make a mockery of the South African legislature. Public debates serve as a stage for government ministers to mouth platitudes while the voice of the people is crowded out. There is an excessive focus on executive power at many negotiating fora.  

Of course, having a strong domestic parliament is not a sufficient condition to overcome the global collective action problem - parliaments in countries like the United States are over-exposed to narrow interests who wish to be allowed to continue polluting. However, if the US electorate were serious about securing a Kyoto commitment from its government, it would almost certainly get it. South Africans have no such option, as our parliament is hamstrung by the conflation of the state with the ANC. I believe if would be fair to argue then that strong legislatures are a necessary condition for securing truly binding global agreements. They are the single most important institution empowered with protecting the global citizenry both from elite excess and narrow interests. 

The irony of most internationally ‘binding’ agreements is that they are not actually binding. There is no supra-national body that will enforce the Kyoto Protocol, hence Canada’s disappointing reneging. And who will police China and the United States’ emissions even if they do commit? In the context of international anarchy then, stronger domestic parliaments can go a long way to securing more truly ‘globally binding’ agreements. 

This is the fifth COP that I have attended over the last 11 years and I have learnt the hard way not to put too high expectations on these negotiations.

Unfortunately the outcomes of negotiations are wholly dependent on the domestic political will in the different negotiating countries at that particular point in time. It was clear before going into these negotiations in Durban that the domestic political will in countries such as the US, Russia, Japan and Canada was simply not there for a truly progressive outcome to be possible. They all signalled their absolute intent not to sign up to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and indicated that they would only agree to a future legally binding treaty if other high emitting developing countries also agreed to emission limits.

Despite these low expectations, I am finding myself cautiously optimistic about the possible outcomes of this Durban COP. It still far too early to pronounce on the success of Durban and negotiations could still fail to break the deadlock in some key areas. I sense however, that we could also be on the brink of a big breakthrough which could lay the basis for a new era in climate change negotiations. China hinted at this at the beginning of the week when they put forward the possibility that they could agree to an all inclusive legally binding treaty to be enacted by 2020. This statement has in a sense called the bluff of all those developed countries who are using the ruse of developing country inaction to justify their own negation of their climate responsibility.

The question is whether the other BASIC countries of Brazil, India and South Africa will be convinced to follow suit, thereby ratcheting up the pressure on developed countries. This could then have the chain effect of pushing more developed countries into agreeing to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol which the EU have already indicated they are willing to sign up to. Canada seems immovable but Japan could be convinced to join the EU in signing up to a second commitment period.

In terms of the all inclusive agreement, Durban would need to agree to negotiations on its legal form starting in 2012 and being decided upon by no later than 2015 thereby allowing it to be enacted before 2020. It would also need to ensure that the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities is fundamentally adhered to in negotiating such a treaty.

The third pillar where we need to make progress is in the establishment of the Green Climate Fund along with some agreement on its sources of finance. This would give some hope to vulnerable developing countries that their adaptation needs will in some way be met and that financial flows can also help countries shift to a low carbon development path. To my mind these three pillars of a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol including the participation of a significant amount of developed countries; agreement on negotiations for an all inclusive legally binding treaty and the establishment of a Green Climate Fund would constitute a significant victory for Durban.

It still won't provide the world with the certainty of keeping global warming below 2 degrees but it will at least put us on a negotiating path where this might still be possible. It would also allow me to proudly say that Durban exceeded my expectations. I just hope that is possible!

To my mind, the major issue at the COP today was the vexing issue of climate finance. The philosophy behind climate finance is that developing countries will require vast sums of money in order to invest in a transition away from a polluting growth path and on to a low carbon economy. In addition, many developing countries will also require financial resources in order to adapt to the negative impacts of climate change.

The Copenhagen Accord in 2009 therefore recognized this reality and held out vague promises of financial flows in the region of U$100 billion per annum by the year 2020. This promise however was not backed up with any concrete assurances of where this money would come from, nor who would administer it and ensure that it was spent for its intended purpose.

In Cancun last year at COP 16 a decision was therefore taken to establish a Green Climate Fund, which would be designed by a Transitional Committee (TC). The TC comprised 40 members, 15 from developed countries and 25 from developing countries. Our very own planning Minister Trevor Manuel in fact served as one of the co-chairs of the TC. After many months of hard work and deliberations the TC finally concluded its report and sent its recommendations to the Durban COP for adoption. The real trick will now lie in getting all the Parties to the COP to formally adopt the recommendations and finally establish the Green Climate Fund. That was what the debate was about today.

After Trevor Manuel presented the findings of the report, various countries representing different groupings at the negotiations were invited to express their views. While most Parties seemed to be content with the recommendations, there was some opposition expressed by the G-77 and China grouping, the ALBA grouping and the United States. Saudi Arabia also used the opportunity to once again drive home their point that they should be compensated for the loss in oil revenue that they might suffer if the world aggressively moves away from fossil fuels!

The Africa Group and the Alliance of Small Island States made the most impassioned pleas for the report to be adopted so that the Green Climate Fund could finally be established without any further delays.

Fortunately the COP President, Minister Mashabane did not agree to the G-77’s request to set up a contact group where the report would have been opened up to further negotiations. If that request had been acceded to then we could have run the risk of the compromise position contained in the report completely unravelling. Instead she undertook to engage in what is called informal consultations with the Parties to see if some of their concerns can be addressed.

To my mind this will prove to be one of Minister Mashabane’s greatest tests as COP President, as Durban has to at the very least deliver the Green Climate Fund. There will still be a number of question marks hanging over it, such as the share of public versus private funding and how the financial flows can in fact be secured. The first step, however, has to be the establishment of the fund and for that to happen we have to get agreement on the recommendations contained within the TC report. I wish her luck.        

Parliamentary questions are used by MPs to access infomation and to hold Ministers to account. In the below answer to a parliamentary question asked by me to the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs (and answered today) the Minister provides information on the breakdown of EIA applications for renewable energy projects per province in 2011.

The Northern Cape, Western Cape and Eastern Cape are generating the majority of interest from the developers of renewable energy. The majority of solar PV applications are in the Northern Cape, whilst the majority of wind applications are in the Western Cape. The 216 applications show that there is a lot of industry interest in renewable energy in South Africa.

It must be remembered however that just because there is an EIA application does not mean that the developer will actually go ahead with the project, as an EIA application does not guarantee access to the electricity grid. The latter process is separate and is administered through a bidding procedure.

Regrettably government has capped access to the grid by renewable energy, so there is more interest from developers than will actually be satisfied by government.

by Gareth Morgan

QUESTION NO. 3420

Mr G R Morgan (DA) to ask the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs:

1)    What (a) total number of environmental impact assessment (EIA) applications has her department received since 1 January 2011 for (i) wind and (ii) solar energy projects and (b) is the breakdown for each province;

  2)    whether (a) wind and (b) solar energy projects require full EIA processes; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

  3)    whether her department has the requisite skills for processing the specified applications; if not, what steps has she taken to rectify the situation; if so, what are the relevant details;

  4)    what key challenges is her department facing in processing EIA applications for the specified projects?

            3420. THE MINISTER OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ANSWERS:

  1)                           

 Eastern Cape - 11 (Wind), 1 (Wind & Solar PV), 16 (Solar PV), 0 (Solar CPV), 0 (Solar CSP) = 28 Total

Free State - 0 (Wind) ,0 (Wind & Solar PV), 9 (Solar PV), 0 (Solar CPV),1 (Solar CSP) = 10 Total

Gauteng - 0 (Wind), 0 (Wind & Solar PV), 7 (Solar PV), 0 (Solar CPV), 1 (Solar CSP) = 8 Total

KwaZulu-Natal - 2 (Wind), 0 (Wind & Solar PV), 4 (Solar PV), 0 (Solar CPV), 0 (Solar CSP) = 6 Total

Limpopo - 0 (Wind), 0 (Wind & Solar PV), 12 (Solar PV), 0 (Solar CPV), 0 (Solar CSP) = 12 Total

Mpumalanga - 0 (Wind) , 0 (Wind & Solar PV), 2 (Solar PV), 0 (Solar CPV), 0 (Solar CSP) = 2 Total

North West - 0 (Wind), 0 (Wind & Solar PV), 11 (Solar PV), 0 (Solar CPV), 0 (Solar CSP) = 11 Total

Northern Cape - 9 (Wind), 0 (Wind & Solar PV), 79 (Solar PV), 0 (Solar CPV), 4 (Solar CSP) = 92 Total

Western Cape - 25 (Wind), 2 (Wind & Solar PV), 20 (Solar PV), 0 (Solar CPV), 0 (Solar CSP) = 47

TOTAL = 216

    2)         Any construction of facilities or infrastructure (i.e. solar or wind energy) for the generation of electricity where the electricity output is more than 10 megawatts (MW) but less than 20 MW; or the output is 10 MW or less but the total extent of the facility covers an area in excess of 1 hectare requires a basic assessment process as it triggers Activity 1 of GN R544 of the NEMA EIA Regulations of June 2010 and process.  But if the electricity output to be generated is 20 MW or more, then a full EIA process is required as it triggers Activity 1 of GN R545 of the NEMA EIA Regulations of June 2010.

 3)         The department has dealt with these applications for the past two years and has requisite skills. 

President Zuma addressed the opening plenary of COP17 in Durban on 28 November 2011. Having observed Zuma deliver three state of the nation addresses since becoming President in May 2009 I have realised that his performance when reading from a prepared speech is usually lacklustre. When he deviates from the script, which he often does at party rallies, he is a powerful orator. He is an even better dancer. But there were no theatrics from the President when he opened COP17. It was another lacklustre performance, which contained a major gaffe.

One of the key problems with the President reading prepared speeches is that they aren’t his words. He does not own them. And hence his delivery lacks conviction. I certainly don’t expect the President to write his own speeches. But there should be a speechwriter with the ability to understand the President’s authentic voice. The President’s particularly poor performance in the 2010 State of the Nation Address resulted in considerable debate about the need for him to have a good speechwriter. This issue clearly remains unresolved.

The gaffe in the speech relates to Zuma saying that South Africa had made a commitment at Copenhagen “to reduce carbon emissions by 34% in 2020 and by 42% in 2025, with support from developed countries with regards to finance, technology and capacity-building”.

Well actually that was not South Africa's commitment at Copenhagen. In a speech delivered by President Zuma at COP15 in Copenhagen he said that "with financial and technological support from developed countries, South Africa for example will be able to reduce emissions by 34% below ‘business as usual’ levels by 2020 and by 42% by 2025". It's not the same thing, and don't let anyone say the difference is irrelevant, because it is not.

The statement in Copenhagen suggests that there is an expected trajectory of emissions from now to 2020 and beyond taking into account our projected economic growth during this period. And it is against this expected trajectory, as problematic as it is to predict the future, that South Africa seeks to deviate by 34% by 2020. In other words its not an absolute cut in emissions.

What the President said in Durban is framed like an absolute cut in emissions. It is wording like this that is associated with targets by developed countries that fall under Annex I of the Kyoto Protocol. These targets are set against a base year. So for example, a developed country might have the target of reducing its emissions by 12.5% by 2012 below 1990 levels.

South Africa, as a non-annex I country, has made it clear that is not signing up for any binding targets anytime soon. Nor should it.

I don't doubt Zuma (or his speechwriter) meant to repeat in Durban what he said in Copenhagen. It is problematic though that Zuma could not accurately articulate what our country's voluntary commitment is.

South Africa's commitment at Copenhagen should not be treated flippantly. It was controversial when he first introduced the voluntary commitment to the world because there had been no consultation on it at home with relevant stakeholders, most notably with the business community, on whom the burden of the commitment would fall.

The Copenhagen voluntary commitment has been included in the recently released Climate Change Response White Paper, which is another reason why the President should have got it right in Durban. It also featured in the National Planning Commission's National Development Plan, released only two weeks ago.

So the speechwriter got the voluntary commitment wrong. But they became Zuma's words to the delegates from 195 countries who have gathered in Durban. Perhaps some commentators would brush this gaffe aside and move on swiftly. But I can't do that.

I expect more from the President of South Africa. My President. If there is one thing that he should know about our country's climate change response, it is the exact details of the voluntary commitment made by him at Copenhagen. Why? Becasue it has major consequences for our economy. The National Planning Commission made it clear in its recently released plan how difficult the road ahead will be if we are to meet this commitment.

Over the last few weeks I have been arguing in Parliament about how complex the implementation of the White Paper will be, and the risks of getting the sequencing and policy coordination wrong. Zuma needs to be alive to these risks. He needs to understand what the consequences for every economic sector will be if we are to meet our volunatary commitment. And what it means for jobs.

He also needs to be aware that we are almost certainly not going to achieve the commitment set for 2020. It is just too difficult to do.

I would like to have been reassured that the President of South Africa knows what he is saying to the world and that he believes his own words. Quite frankly, he should have picked up the mistake in his speech and corrected it himself. 

by Gareth Morgan MP

 The following is an extract from Cape  Town This Week, a weekly newsletter by  the Executive Mayor of Cape Town,  Patricia de Lille.

 Climate change represents a long-term  challenge, not only for policy-makers, but  for everyone. While projections differ in certain ways, there is large consensus that we have to shift our development plans to ones that are environmentally sustainable in the long-term.

As such, the City knows that COP17 is not just about talking. It is about a way of thinking.

Our view of development looks to building the African city of the future, today. To do that, we need to develop this city in ways that guarantee that it will be able to provide opportunities for our current population and future ones.

We cannot only govern for today. Meaningful leadership must govern for tomorrow as well.

That is why we think about development in terms of the long-view and sustainability in Cape Town. And we are proud to say that we have been a leader in changing the way we do business to become more environmentally sustainable.

Because real environmental planning must affect the way we think about everything. It shouldn’t be reduced to cheap gimmicks that amount to nothing more than a layer of green paint.

Leading the charge amongst African cities, and indeed in some ways globally, we have already begun certain key programmes to help us build for the future.

 We are an active partner in the Cape Town Climate Change Coalition – a dynamic partnership of concerned organisations from a wide range of sectors. The City made significant institutional changes in 2008, at the political and bureaucratic levels, to drive this new area of work.

The City approved a cross-directorate Energy and Climate Action Plan in May 2010. The action plan is based on up-to-date information, compiled by Cape Town’s Climate Change Think Tank of academics, specialists and government officials. The plan affects all aspects of the City that have a bearing on our sustainability, including addressing levels of electricity consumption.

 An Energy Efficient Forum for Commercial Buildings as a partnership promoting an extensive solar water-heater programme to aid reductions in electricity consumption.

 A Green Buildings Handbook that guides developers in resource-efficient design.

Six local government-owned buildings have been retrofitted for energy efficiency.

Solar water heaters have been installed in all 23 nature reserve buildings and 44 clinics.

11 000 energy efficient streetlights and 7 000 energy efficient traffic lights.

Eco-trained drivers now pilot City vehicles and new vehicle purchases have to meet fuel efficiency criteria.

City rental housing upgrades are including insulated ceilings, low flow water devices, water meters and compact fluorescent lights.

Tackling urban sprawl by encouraging higher density settlements.

Improving public transport infrastructure and services, reducing carbon emissions.

The City has an electricity savings website for citizens.

Plans to facilitate the extended roll-out of solar water heaters to residents.

The conclusion of highly researched reports for policy formulation, including Energy Scenarios for Cape Town and the State of Energy and Energy Futures Report.

The Kuyasa Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Pilot Project, which involves the retrofitting of solar water heaters, insulated ceilings and energy efficient lighting in over 2 300 low-cost homes in Khayelitsha. The project will see an immediate impact on the social, health and economic well-being of the targeted beneficiaries. Kuyasa is South Africa’s first internationally registered CDM project under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and was the first Gold Standard Project to be registered in the world. The project has generated substantial interest locally and internationally as a pilot for the energy-efficient adaptation of South African low-cost housing.

The Atlantis Revitalisation Scheme, which aims to attract green industries to the area through streamlined land release and rezoning.

One could look at the extent of City activities and question the scope of our projects. But that would be misguided. There is a sea-change in policy perspectives on development and the shift to sustainability across all our business will take time. 

The most difficult part is starting the process. Not only have we started, we are well on our way and in fact are now, in many instances, forging the path ahead.

Cities are the future. Urban centres will only increase in size and economic activity as time progresses. They must be at the forefront of adapting for sustainable development, as we have in Cape Town. Cities do not have to wait for agreements at the state level to act.

I have recently been contemplating the science of climate change, or more appropriately the diverse responses to it.

On Saturday I unfortunately found myself embroiled in a debate with somebody who would probably describe himself as a climate sceptic rather than a climate denialist. He has now taken the position that the planet is warming but that the effect of this will not be catastrophic. This argument is different from Andrew Kenny, who in today's Business Day was given half a page to repeat his same old arguments rubbishing the scientific evidence around climate change. I am not a climate scientist so I am not going to engage in a scientific debate about the merits of their arguments, especially seeing that they are not climate scientists themselves. The point is that the scientific consensus around climate change is well established and each of the red herrings that denialists have thrown up have been comprehensively addressed (for more on that consult these excellent website realclimate.org)

So why is the science continuously brought into question. It is certainly true that modeling the climate is a particularly complex exercise with a number of uncertainties to contend with, but this has all been captured in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the real reason the science is routinely subjected to conspiracy theories is that it's implications are proving too politically and economically difficult to contend with. George Monbiot gave a wonderful exposé on the corporate interests and strategies originally employed by them to raise doubts around the science in his book Heat. It is therefore a convenient strategy for those who want to avoid taking responsibility for confronting this challenge to simply dismiss the very scientific imperative for action. The sad reality, however, is that even amongst those countries who accept the science there seems to be an unwillingness to act in accordance with it.

The opinion piece below by Gareth Morgan was published in the Business Day on 28 November 2011. To see article on BD website click here:>>

SA’s foreseen transition to a low- carbon economy, as outlined in chapter five of the National Development Plan, is an exciting vision. Without credible political will, however, the intentions are likely to remain exactly that. This is well known. Less publicised, and of equal importance, are the skill and dexterity required to manage a carbon budget system. Susceptibility to narrow interest groups can lead to the creation of perverse incentives that override the objectives.

Carbon budgets set the amount of carbon that can be emitted in a given time and essentially serve as a mitigation instrument that can provide direction and certainty to business and the government. These targets must be set within the framework of a progressive and sophisticated carbon-pricing regime. Even this, though, will be mere gesturing if it is not complemented by robust political and economic institutions.

The government’s National Response to Climate Change White Paper says "the process to draw up or to review the carbon budgets will consist of the following steps: Identification of a portfolio of enabling mitigation programmes and measures, including economy-wide measures and instruments, such as a carbon tax and incentives to industry and households, and the financial resources to support them."

Carbon taxes are favoured by the majority of economists as the optimal means of internalising the social costs of environmentally damaging carbon emissions.

The major problem with carbon emissions is that — in the absence of a tax — they are rational for individual firms to incur because they do not currently bear the latent costs. However, the divergence between private returns and social costs means individual rationality produces collective irrationality. Taxes are the most effective way of reducing the consumption of carbon-intensive products. They are also the most effective way of reducing emissions from industrial activity, such as coal-fired power. Correctly engineered, they should force firms to internalise the social costs of their carbon footprint. SA’s tax on plastic shopping bags is a good example of how this kind of policy can transform consumer behaviour.

As attractive as carbon taxes look in econometric models, we should proceed with caution, especially given our fragile, carbon- intensive economy. First, because carbon emission is a global issue, mitigation efforts are subject to collective-action problems and co-ordination failures. Carbon taxes have to be universally implemented to prevent carbon leakage, especially in countries with weak environmental legislation. Unfortunately, the incentive to defect from global agreements is strong in SA. 2 emitter on the planet). But carbon taxes are less susceptible to defection than Kyoto-type agreements, which call for caps on emissions.

Second, there are — economically speaking — no good substitutes for carbon fuels as yet, especially in the transport sector. Subsidies for alternative energy use may be preferable, but these are also susceptible to distributional and rent-seeking costs.

Economists usually respond to the above concerns by arguing that even if a reduction in emissions is not immediately achieved, revenue is still raised. Moreover, while there is a risk of carbon leakage, positive incentives for adherence to a tax regime may create collective commitment. Finally, a viable carbon price (the most controversial aspect of creating functioning carbon-budget systems) would purportedly not affect fuel prices detrimentally — they are price-inelastic.

Though less susceptible than other mechanisms to hijacking by narrow interest groups and rent-seeking, these are still significant concerns, especially where oversight institutions are weak. This is where the South African public and opposition parties should keep a careful eye on proceedings.

The government has an unimpressive record of championing moribund parastatals. We have to ensure that the mechanisms of a carbon-budget system don’t become tools in the hands of the state to surreptitiously pursue its industrial policy. Crowding out of entrepreneurial competition must be avoided. A clever carbon-budget regime should invite innovative competition, especially in the energy and industrial sectors. Companies that have already incurred sunken capital to employ clean technologies should not be taxed at the same rate as companies such as Eskom. Where the government has traditionally kept the barriers to entry high in "strategic" sectors, we should dismantle these and encourage new entrants.

Finally, the correct pricing of carbon is critical to the healthy functioning of a carbon- budget system. If it is too low, it will be ineffective. If it is too high, wealthy countries (whose growth does not depend as heavily as ours on fossil fuels) will simply use a global carbon-tax regime as a means of subtly employing nontariff barriers to trade. This would drastically undermine our export efforts, on which our growth depends.

A carbon-budget system is a great idea in theory. Its success in SA will depend on a deft combination of political will and precision in constructing the institutions necessary to prevent rent-seeking and state abuse.