Climate Change and Energy Insecurity

The Challenge for Peace, Security and Development

Felix Dodds, Andrew Higham, Richard Sherman

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781136546280
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Climate change is now recognised as one of the greatest challenges facing the international community and when coupled with energy production and use - the most significant contributor to climate change - and the related security problems the double threat to international security and human development is of the highest order. This wide-ranging book brings together leading thinkers from academia, government and civil society to examine and address the global insecurity and development challenges arising from the twin thrust of climate change and the energy supply crunch.

Part one considers energy. It analyses the challenges of meeting future energy demands and the ongoing and future security-related conflicts over energy. Coverage includes security and development concerns related to the oil and gas, nuclear, bio-fuels and hydropower sectors, ensuring energy access for all and addressing sustainable consumption and production in both developed and rapidly industrializing countries such as India, China, Brazil and South Africa.

Part two analyses how climate change contributes to global insecurity and presents a consolidated overview of the potential threats and challenges it poses to international peace and development. Coverage includes future water scenarios including a focus on scarcity in the Middle East, food security, biodiversity loss, land degradation, the changing economics of climate change, adaptation and the special case of small island states.

The final part lays out the potential avenues and mechanisms available to the international community to address and avert climate and energy instability via the multilateral framework under the United Nations. It also addresses mechanisms for resource and knowledge transfer from industrialized to developing countries to ensure a low-carbon energy transition by focusing on the rapid deployment of clean energy technologies and ways to tackle income and employment insecurity created by the transition away from traditional energy sources.

This book offers the most comprehensive international assessment of the challenges and solutions for tackling the global insecurity arising from climate change and energy provision and use. It is essential reading for students, researchers and professionals across international relations, security, climate change and the energy sectors.

Part I

Energy Insecurity:

Challenges to Future
Energy Stability

1
The Challenge of Climate Change from a Developing Country:

Marthinus van Schalkwyk

Introduction

We live in interesting and very challenging times. Governments have to really start taking decisions for the long term if we are to survive this century in any meaningful way.

In this chapter, I want to first look at what needs to be addressed internationally – the recommendations at the Hokkaido G8 Summit in 2008 from what has been termed the G5 (Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa) – and then how South Africa is trying to lead by example.

In 1992, the United Nations Climate Change Convention was negotiated as a framework, an umbrella that establishes the key principles and areas of work. In 1995, governments around the world took decisive action and agreed to develop a new legal instrument, the Kyoto Protocol, as a first, but not sufficient, step under this framework.

Adopting another instrument that will coexist with the Kyoto Protocol under this convention framework, parts of which need to be legally binding, may well be what is required next to achieve a balance of interests.

First, we must give legally binding force to mitigation commitments by the one developed country that has not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol. All eyes are now on the new administration in the US. They must make commitments comparable to the mid-term targets negotiated under the Kyoto Protocol for the second commitment period, and these must be supported by a robust compliance system. The absolute reduction targets for Annex I parties, in aggregate, should be towards the upper end of the range of 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and should underpin a long-term goal of domestic emission reductions in developed countries of 80 to 95 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Second, we must create a binding regime for delivery by developed countries of technology, financing and capacity-building support for developing country action, which is measurable, reportable and verifiable. Predictable funding and technology flows to developing countries hold the potential to trigger commensurate nationally appropriate mitigation actions. This will ensure that we may bend the curve of our emissions to deviate substantially from our business-as-usual emission trajectories.

Finally, we must create a mechanism for international recognition of developing country action and to match actions with commensurate incentives.

We must ensure that global emissions peak in the next 10 to 15 years. Otherwise the world will become increasingly insecure. It is now time to raise the bar for all, albeit in a differentiated way for developed and developing countries. South Africa stands ready to do its part.

G5 leadership

As I mentioned earlier, in order to move forward we need the only member of the G8 that has yet to commit to Quantified Emission Limitation and Reduction Objectives (QELROs) to do it soon. From the US we expect comparability of efforts, by which we understand comparability of targets and of compliance, captured in a legally binding manner under the convention. The US must negotiate its commitment together with all nations, and these commitments must be encoded in US domestic legislation. We cannot accept anything that suggests that, because the US has done so little for so long, we must allow them to do less than what is required by science in future.

The signals from President Obama have been encouraging, even though in substance the new administration is still on a zero reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. This is clearly not acceptable. Although this is an opening bid, the US would need to come forward with a meaningful negative percentage soon. The same applies to Japan, Russia and Canada, and to the very disappointing announcements on mid-term targets by Australia.

During 2008, the G8 proposed a long-term global goal for emission reductions of 50 per cent by 2050, without a base year and without mid-term targets. We would argue that this proposal does not meet the required-by-science criteria. Without a base year it has no credibility. It is based on the lowest common denominator in the G8 grouping.

During the G8 Summit the G5 have made a much more detailed and more ambitious proposal, also supported by many G8 countries, which essentially has three elements:

1 Developed countries should take the lead with ambitious and absolute emission reductions of between 80 and 95 per cent below 1990 levels by mid century.

2 Quantified emission targets under the Kyoto Protocol should be towards the upper end of the range of 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 for all developed countries.

3 There should be deviation from business-as-usual emission trajectories in developing countries, supported and enabled by technology and financing.

For South Africa this comes as a political package. To be meaningful, a longterm goal must have a base year, it must be underpinned by clear, unambiguous and ambitious mid-term targets for developed countries, and it should be based on an equitable burden-sharing paradigm that reflects historical responsibility for the problem. Without a base year and mid-term targets, a commitment to ‘50 per cent by 2050’ is an empty slogan without substance.

We were disappointed that some G8 countries continue to reject the ambitious package that we strive for. We would have liked to see much more from the G8. If they accept the G5 package, it would pave the way for significant progress in the current climate negotiations. The developing world gave two steps forward. The ball is now in the G8’s court to respond and to deal with the reality of the lowest common denominator between them.

Leading by example

The South African government launched its long-term mitigation scenario (LTMS) process on climate change in 2006. Findings and policy recommendations based on the LTMS were presented to the cabinet in July 2008. This is the culmination of two and a half years of work that involved stakeholders from government, business, civil society and labour.

During the Cabinet Lekgotla, the South African government discussed the policy implications of the LTMS in detail. In response, it has outlined an ambitious vision and adopted a proactive and scientifically and economically robust policy framework that will ensure we meet the challenges of climate change in decades to come. It has set the strategic direction for climate action in South Africa.

Our government’s vision and the implementation of this policy framework will be the best insurance policy that current and future generations will have against the potentially devastating impacts of climate change. By adopting this strategic direction, South Africa demonstrates that it is ready to shoulder its fair share of responsibility as part of an effective global response.

The worst impacts of climate change can be avoided if the rest of the world takes up the challenge in a similarly serious way, with developed countries taking the lead.

The international negotiations on strengthening the climate regime after 2012 gained significant momentum at the talks in Bali in December 2007. This process is scheduled to conclude in Copenhagen at the end of 2009.

Science tells us that the climate challenge is urgent and our government has therefore formulated a comprehensive domestic response based on the best available science, scenario-building tools, rigorous analysis of energy and non-energy emissions, the consideration of a wide range of mitigation options and potentials, adaptation planning, and economic models. This is, indeed, cutting edge work.

The world faces a global climate emergency. It is now clear that only action by both developed and developing countries can prevent the climate crisis from deepening. While developed countries bear most of the responsibility for causing the problem to date, developing countries – including South Africa – must face up to our responsibility for the future. While we have different historical responsibilities for emissions, we share a common responsibility for the future.

The technical work done in the LTMS makes it clear that without constraints our emissions might quadruple by 2050. This is, in the most literal sense, not sustainable: if we continue with business as usual, we will go out of business.

The implementation of a combination of the three LTMS strategic options – in other words, those that can be achieved with known technologies and at a relatively affordable cost – can deliver a substantial deviation from business-as-usual emission trajectories in South Africa. By committing to and implementing this vision and policy framework, the South African government will make a meaningful contribution to the international effort.

The South African government’s vision

The South African government has a vision for its climate policy. It believes that in designing our policy for the transition to a climate-resilient and low-carbon economy and society, we must balance our mitigation and adaptation response. Our climate response policy will be informed by what is required by science.

We will continue to proactively build the knowledge base and our capacity to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change, most importantly by enhancing early warning and disaster reduction systems and in the roll-out of basic services, water resource management, infrastructure planning, agriculture, biodiversity and in the health sector.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must peak, plateau and decline. This means that they must stop growing at the latest by 2020 to 2025, stabilize for up to ten years and then decline in absolute terms.

Over the long term, we will redefine our competitive advantage and structurally transform the economy by shifting from an energy-intensive to a climate-friendly path as part of a pro-growth, pro-development and pro-jobs strategy.

Overall, we believe this would constitute a fair and meaningful contribution to global efforts. We would demonstrate leadership in the multilateral system by committing to a substantial deviation from the baseline, enabled by international funding and technology.

The South African government has developed scenarios for mitigation based on key elements. The Start Now strategic option as outlined in the long-term mitigation scenarios is based, amongst others, on accelerated energy efficiency and conservation across all sectors, including industry, commerce, transport and residential, inter alia through more stringent building standards.

We will invest in the Reach for the Goal strategic option by setting ambitious research and development targets focusing on carbon-friendly technologies, identifying new resources and affecting behavioural change.

Furthermore, regulatory mechanisms as set out in the Scale Up strategic option will be combined with economic instruments under the Use the Market strategic option, with a view to the following:

• Setting ambitious and mandatory (as distinct from voluntary) targets for energy efficiency and in other sub-national sectors. In the next few months each sector will be required to do work to enable it to decide on actions and targets in relation to this overall framework.

• Based on the electricity-crisis response, government’s energy efficiency policies and strategies will be continuously reviewed and amended to reflect more ambitious national targets aligned with the LTMS.

• Increasing the price on carbon through an escalating CO₂ tax or an alternative market mechanism.

• Diversifying the energy mix away from coal while shifting to cleaner coal by, for example, introducing more stringent thermal efficiency and emissions standards for coal-fired power stations.

• Setting targets for electricity generated from both renewable and nuclear energy sources.

• Laying the basis for a net zero-carbon electricity sector in the long term.

• Encouraging renewable energy through feed-in tariffs.

• Exploring and developing carbon capture and storage (CCS) for coal-fired power stations and all coal-to-liquid (CTL) plants, and not approving new coal–fired power stations without carbon capture readiness.

• Introducing industrial policy that favours sectors using less energy per unit of economic output and building domestic industries in these emerging sectors.

• Setting ambitious and, where appropriate, mandatory national targets for the reduction of transport emissions, including through stringent and escalating fuel efficiency standards, facilitating passenger modal shifts towards public transport, and the aggressive promotion of hybrids and electric vehicles.

Process going forward: 2009 to 2012

The South African government has mandated a clear path for the future. Milestones include a national summit held in March 2009, the conclusion of international negotiations at the end of 2009, and a final domestic policy to be adopted by the end of 2010 after international negotiations have been completed.

The process will culminate in the introduction of a legislative, regulatory and fiscal package to give effect to the strategic direction and policy from now until 2012.

South African business response

In November 2008 I spoke at the launch of the second round of the South African contribution to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). We found that the businesses that contributed to the project have recognized that climate change and its impacts are the biggest environmental challenges we are facing in this century, and they have decided to be part of a collective response. They understand that it would not be economically, environmentally or politically sustainable for South Africa to continue to increase our emissions along a business-as-usual path.

To tackle the challenges ahead, definitive leadership within both the public and private sectors will be required, particularly given competing social and economic priorities, comparatively high per capita GHG emissions and high vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.

This second CDP survey found encouraging evidence that South African companies are beginning to appreciate and respond meaningfully to this challenge:

• This year, the CDP was extended to include the top 100 companies on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE). This means that the sample size more than doubled since last year’s report, which only included the JSE top 40.

• South Africa’s second CDP generated a response rate of 59 per cent.

• There has been a sizeable increase in the number of companies disclosing their GHG emissions. More than 75 per cent of responding companies disclosed their GHG emissions this year. While in several instances this disclosure is only on a partial basis, there is, nevertheless, an emerging commitment to improved monitoring and reporting on greenhouse gas emissions.

• In a significant change on last year’s responses, there appears to be much greater awareness of, and engagement in, government policy on climate issues. This builds on the long-term mitigation scenarios process, which entailed the engagement of numerous senior executives across different sectors.

A collaborative approach to climate solutions is developing. Acknowledging that an escalating price on carbon will become part of the future business environment, several companies are beginning to work with government, stakeholders and industry peers on national policies relating to climate change. Notwithstanding these encouraging developments, there remains room for improvement:

• Relatively few companies (23 per cent) have disclosed specific co...