Long-Term Mitigation Scenarios (LTMS) g g ( ) for South Africa Jongikhaya Witi Jongikhaya Witi Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town AIM Training Workshop NIES, Tsukuba, Japan 27 27 - 31 September 2008 31 S t b 2008
The Context The Context Climate Change is real Climate Change is real and its predicted impacts for SA are serious
Climate Change evidence & impacts Scientific evidence for a Scientific evidence for a • Climate change is already having Climate change is already having • • rise in global temperature predominantly negative impacts on people and ecosystems. over the past century South Africa is suffering and will South Africa is suffering and will • unequivocal l suffer serious impacts under Climate change almost global business-as-usual: • Water stress Water stress certainly driven by t i l d i b • Floods increased greenhouse gas • Rainfall patterns • concentrations caused by concentrations caused by Spreading malaria • human activities
The Challenge The Challenge The World has a GHG emission problem Time is limited Time is limited We will have to act globally South Africa is in a unique situation South Africa is in a unique situation
Mitigation is urgent time to bend the curve is short “It is clear that delaying action on this matter of climate change will hit poor countries and communities hardest” Pres Mbeki UN GA 2007 2007
SA compared to other countries Emissions per capita E i i it Emissions intensity l int'l $ 16 800 14 700 n n c etc s CO2 / mill 600 600 2-eq per perso 12 12 Deforestatio 500 10 400 300 8 200 6 100 tons t CO - 4 a a l a d D i 2 c z n i l d r i C a i o r h n f r E W A B C I O 0 h t u South Brazil China India OECD World o o S S Africa Relative to the size of our population, emissions ‘per capita’ are high • Emissions-intensity due to dependency on coal and inefficient use of • energy Share of cumulative emissions lower than annual - historical • responsibility works best responsibility works best
Scenario Building Team Mandate & Objectives Products Products j LTMS LTMS
LTMS mandate & objectives • LTMS is a Cabinet-mandated process for id identifying scenarios for mitigation of climate tif i i f iti ti f li t change • Led by DEAT, project managed by ERC, d b d b C independent facilitation by Tokiso • Two sets of key outputs: • Robust, broadly supported recommendations for a , y pp long-term national climate policy • Sound basis for SA negotiating position for negotiations on post-2012 • Follow up with awareness and implementation
The work of the Scenario Building Team (SBT) • Scenario Building Team established Aug 2006 to S i B ildi T bli h d A 2006 carry out the technical aspects • SBT made up of strategic thinkers from government, industry, labour, civil society, as well as other y, , y, relevant players • Commissioned research teams to provide • Commissioned research teams to provide information • 24 October 2007, after more than a year of intense 24 Octobe 2007 afte mo e than a ea of intense work, the initial technical work of the LTMS was signed off by SBT i d ff b SBT
LTMS products APPROVED by all members of SBT All t All technical reports h i l t ACCEPTED by SBT as rigorous research A) Scenario Document best available scientific B) T B) Technical Summary h i l S i f information ti cess adequate basis to inform Technical Report and Appendix the further LTMS process S Proc Technical Inputs: Technical Inputs: Full texts of the various - Energy emissions research groups - Non-energy emissions Non energy emissions LTMS -Economy – wide analysis - Climate impacts p Facilitated PROCESS with strategic thinkers from key stakeholder sectors y
Cabinet on LTMS • Cabinet lekgotla considered LTMS outcomes Cabinet lekgotla considered LTMS outcomes g (July 2008) (July 2008) • Set vision, strategic direction and framework for S t S t Set vision, strategic direction and framework for i i i i t t t t i i di di ti ti d f d f k f k f policy directions policy directions p p y y • Policy development process to follow Policy development process to follow
LTMS: Process and research Robust and broadly supported results achieved through technical hi d th h t h i l methodology and extensive stakeholder involvement
Management, Facilitation Team & Secretariat • Joanne Yawitch and DEAT team (Project • Joanne Yawitch and DEAT team (Project Manager) • Harald Winkler (Project Lead), Pierre Mukheibir H ld Wi kl (P j t L d) Pi M kh ibi (Administration) • Facilitators: Stefan Raubenheimer (Lead), Edwin Mohlalehi, and Pascal Moloi (High Level) Mohlalehi, and Pascal Moloi (High Level) • Tokiso Secretariat: Tanya Venter, Yasmin Moola, Rachel Mosupye Elin Lorimer Rachel Mosupye, Elin Lorimer
Scenario Building Team Business Civil society y Government Government • SASOL • DEAT Environment EcoCity/CURES • • Eskom DME Minerals & Energy • Groundwork • • EIUG Energy Intensive DST Science & Technology DST Science & Technology • • SESSA SESSA • • U Users Group G DoT Transport • Labour (NUM) • • Engen Treasury • SEA • • Grain SA Foreign Affairs g • SACAN • • • Anglo Coal Anglo Coal DTI Trade & Industry • COSATU • • BHP Billiton DPE Public Enterprises • SALGA • • Chamber of Mines DWAF Water Affairs & Forestry • WWF-SA • • Aluminium – AFSA Presidency P id • • Kumba Resources • Earthlife Africa SAWS Weather Services • • Chemical – CAIA CEF / SA Nat’l Energy Research • • Engen Institute Institute • Forestry SA NERSA Energy Regulator • • AgriSA W Cape Province (DEADP) • • Business Unity SA City of Johannesburg • • • Sappi Sappi
Four research teams and inputs from stakeholder experts Energy Emissions (led by ERC modeling) • Alison Hughes, Mary Haw, Harald Winkler, Andrew Marquard, Bruno Merven • Markal model reviewed by Stephen Pye (AEAT, UK) • Expert input from stakeholders: Sonwabo Damba (Eskom); Energy Efficiency Technical Committee special meeting: Ian Langridge • (Anglo American), Valerie Geen, Tsvetana Mateva, Hermien vd Walt (all three National Business Initiative); Chesney Bradshaw (ABB); Barry Bredenkamp (Nat’l Energy Efficiency Agency); Burt Buissine (British American Tobacco); Rochelle Chetty Sonwabo Damba, (both Eskom); LJ Grobler (NW University); Chris Teffo (Chamber of Mines); Alan Munn (Engen); Egmont Otterman (PPCement); Nico Smith (Mittal Steel); Neal Smither (BP); Theresa Maree (Eon) (PPCement); Nico Smith (Mittal Steel); Neal Smither (BP); Theresa Maree (Eon) Non-Energy Emissions (led by CSI R) • Rina Taviv, Marna van der Merwe, Bob Scholes and Gill Collet • Industrial process emissions: G Kornelius (Airshed), A Marquard and H Winkler • Expert input from stakeholders: Linda Godfrey (NRE CSIR) Antony Phiri (NRE CSIR) Harma Greben (NRE CSIR) Susanne Dittke Expert input from stakeholders: Linda Godfrey (NRE CSIR), Antony Phiri (NRE CSIR), Harma Greben (NRE CSIR), Susanne Dittke • • (EnviroSense CC), Saliem Haider (City of Cape Town) and Stan Jewaskiewitz (Envitech Solutions); John Scotcher ForestLore Consulting, Howick and Johan Bester from the DWAF. Johan Claasen from NDA, Pietman Botha from GrainSA, Sylvester Mpandeli and Matiga Motsepe from the ARC, Koos van Zyl and Nic Opperman from AgriSA; Guy F Midgley from SANBI and Brian van Wilgen from CSIR. Economy-wide research (led by UCT economics) y ( y ) • Kalie Pauw, with Celeste Coetzee • Reviewed by Dirk van Seventer (TIPS) • 2 special meetings of economists: Roger Baxter (Chamber of Mines). Raymond Parsons (Nedlac); Theo van Rensburg, Louise Du • Plessis, Marna Kearney (all three Naitonal Treasury); Ashraf Kariem (Presidency); Stephen Gelb (Edge Institute); Michael McClintock (Sasol); James Blignaut (University of Pretoria); Simi Siwisi BUSA (Sasol); James Blignaut (University of Pretoria); Simi Siwisi BUSA Climate Change I mpacts (led by SANBI ) • G Midgley, with Pierre Mukheibir • Expert authors: R Chapman, P Mukheibir, M Tadross, B Hewitson, S Wand, R Schulze, T Lumsden, M Horan, M Warburton, B • Kgope, B Mantlana, A Knowles, A Abayomi, G Ziervogel, R Cullis and A Theron g p , , , y , g ,
The Gap The Gap Two Scenarios presented by the SBT Two Scenarios presented by the SBT frame the choices for South Africa
Two Scenarios: Growth without Constraints and Required by Science 1,800 1,600 1,400 Growth without Constraints uivalent Gap: difference between 1,200 where emissions might go 1,000 , and where they need to go y g THE GAP THE GAP Mt CO 2 -equ (GWC – RBS, emissions in 2050) Current Dev Path 800 Gap is 1300 Mt CO2-eq in 2050 More than three times 600 600 2003 annual emissions 2003 annual emissions M 400 R Required by Science i d b S i 200 -
The Technical Options The Technical Options Wedges = Individual Mitigation Actions g g Showing Emission Reductions & Costs (and savings) & Costs (and savings)
Recommend
More recommend
