Politics the main hurdle, not science
More cartoons online at Reeler is the Ecosystem Carbon
Project Manager at WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature).
(jreeler@wwf.org.za)
IN DECEMBER, all the nations in the world will meet again in an attempt to thrash out a potentially binding agreement on carbon emissions. The scientific body is in near-universal agreement that human-induced climate change is an unprecedented threat to both people and the environment, but despite many years of negotiations and consensus-building, we are further from the goal of addressing climate change than ever. At this point, the main hurdle in addressing climate change is not science, but politics.
As a precursor to this possible new global agreement, each country is supposed to put on paper what measures they are prepared to undertake to address this problem.
This Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) highlights a country’s mitigation efforts (putting a halt to carbon dioxide emissions). Though many countries will also highlight their proposed goals for enabling society to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
A key issue in this process is one of equity: What is a nation’s “fair share” of the world’s effort? The truth is that global emissions must be reduced to near-zero well before the end of the century if we are to ensure that the impacts of climate change are not irreversible; but should all nations bear that responsibility equally?
Developed nations, including those in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the EU, are historically responsible for the bulk of greenhouse emissions. Indeed, the prolonged period of harnessing fossil fuels played a key role in competitive edge that enabled their domination of much of the world in the 19th and 20th centuries. As such, argue developing nations, developed nations should bear the bulk of the responsibility.
Developed nations also have more capacity to shift their economies towards a lowcarbon trajectory, merely as a result of their significant tax base and industrial capacity. While “responsibility” and “capacity” do not necessarily overlap (some countries have a high responsibility but lower capacity, while others are more readily able to shift but have not been responsible for the bulk of emissions), it is clear that countries at the lower end of the development trajectory fall short on both these criteria. This is the basis of a negotiation position called the “common but differentiated responsibilities” stance – all nations have a responsibility to reduce emissions to a sustainable level, but some must bear more of the cost.
Moreover, if developing nations were to
A key issue in countries thrashing out an agreement on carbon emissions is: What is a nation’s fair share of the world’s effort?
follow the same development trajectory as developed nations, emissions from developing nations would far exceed the IPCC’s recommended global limit of 1000 gigatons of carbon dioxide, which will commit the planet to dangerous climate change. As an example, in the past 20 years, China’s unprecedented expansion of its industrial capacity, fuelled by a ferocious rate of coalplant building, has seen it take the global lead in carbon dioxide emissions.
In 2012, China was responsible for 28 percent of the world’s emissions – with severe environmental costs in the form of air and water pollution, water shortages, poor human health and loss of ecosystems. Moreover, it is now responsible for 11 percent of all historical emissions – with almost all emitted in the past 30 years.
Despite this, China’s per capita carbon emissions of 7.91 tons are slightly below the EU average of 8.15 tons, and well below the US total of 18.55 tons.
It is clearly necessary for developing and least developed nations to transition to a low-carbon economy too. This can’t happen without significant investment from the developed nations in the form of technologies and assistance.
South Africa has taken a strong stance on climate change internationally, becoming one of the first nations to make a mitigation commitment without being required to do so by an international convention.
This commitment to reduce national emissions to 34 percent below baseline emissions by 2020, and 42 percent below baseline by 2030, has been praised. But the baseline on which South Africa’s emissions should be measured has increased several times, from the “growth without constraints” pathway in the 2007 Long Term Mitigation Scenarios, through to a revised baseline tabled to the parliamentary portfolio committee for water and environmental affairs in 2011, to the “Business As Usual” scenario in the Desired Emission Reduction Outcomes discussions last year.
This shifting baseline means the actual reduction activities to be undertaken have dropped, and South Africa is reducing the efficacy of upholding this commitment. As a developing nation, it should expect to receive assistance from developed nations for both mitigation and adaptation efforts to address the impacts of climate change. However, South Africa is also the largest economy in sub-Saharan Africa, and the 11th largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world. As such, it clearly has a responsibility and capacity to address some of the consequences of its actions.
South Africa’s INDC must be clear on what activities we will undertake, and what extra funding we require to further reduce carbon emissions. Moreover, it must clarify and commit to a quantification of the baseline upon which we will measure our mitigation efforts – allowing a clear calculation of the total emissions we are claiming as our own from the limited global carbon budget. And finally, we must not fall short on ambition – taking a strong stance has allowed South Africa to punch above its weight in the international climate negotiations. This is essential to ensure that the broader goal of a sustainable future for generations to come can be achieved.