Creamer Media’s Engineering News Online
Magazine in Store Now!
Advanced Search
 
 
We have detected that the browser you are using is no longer supported. As a result, some content may not display correctly.
We suggest that you upgrade to the latest version of any of the following browsers:
         
close notification
powered by
GOLD 1255.39 $/ozChange: -1.14
PLATINUM 1553.50 $/ozChange: -1.70
R/$ exchange 7.24Change: 0.03
R/€ exchange 9.18Change: 0.05
 
 
CLIMATE POLICY
SA will not commit to growth-threatening climate targets
3 COMMENTS  |  
ADD A COMMENT PRINT
 
 
10th September 2009
TEXT SIZE
Text Smaller Disabled Text Bigger
 

The South African government would establish a reconfigured inter-Ministerial committee to formulate a national programme for climate change, as well as the country's formal negotiation stance ahead of global climate negotiations in December. But Cabinet reiterated on Thursday that it was not ready to agree to any targets at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark, that would undermine South Africa's growth trajectory.

The UNFCC negotiations were scheduled to begin on December 15 with the aim of reaching agreement on an international climate-change regime beyond the 2012 horizon of the Kyoto Protocol.

The new committee would comprise six ministers, but quite surprisingly did not include the energy and science and technology ministers, the departments of which were viewed as key, particularly given that most of the country's emissions arose from the production of electricity, as well as transport fuels through the carbon-heavy coal-to-liquids technology.

However, it would include water and environmental affairs, international relations and cooperation, economic development, trade and industry, rural development and cooperative governance and traditional affairs.

South Africa also intended interacting with other developing nations ahead of Copenhagen to ensure that the final mandate incorporated a so-called "development agenda" for alleviating poverty and economic growth.

World Wildlife Fund's climate change programme manager Richard Worthington told Engineering News Online that the Cabinet statement was in line with government's previous pronouncements on the issue.

It also underlined South Africa's position that industrialised countries needed to take the lead in reducing overall carbon emissions, as well as in supporting measurable, reportable and verifiable developing-country efforts to pursue lower-carbon development paths.

He added that while South Africa's rejection of caps was justifiable and logical, especially given its power stresses, it continued to fail to fully recognise the compatibility between the country's sustainable development objectives and the pursuit of climate-change mitigation and adaptation strategies.

"There needs to be a mindset change in government where the primary objective is not economic growth alone, but rather sustainable development, which is synergistic with low-carbon development," Worthington explained.

Cabinet reiterated that it was prepared to take responsible and measurable action to reduce emissions over time, in line with its existing energy policy and the Long Term Mitigation Scenarios. But it made it clear that South Africa would not accept a formal cap, despite acknowledging the country's contribution to carbon emissions and the potential opportunities presented by science in pursuance of a low-carbon future.

"Like other developing nations, we still face the major challenge of growing our economy to enable us to meet the Millennium Development Goals," the Cabinet said in a statement, adding that it viewed adaptation efforts as a priority at the Copenhagen talks.

"Economies must be transformed to enable sustainable, low-emissions growth and development, and at the same time, allowing communities and developing nations to adapt to climate change," the Cabinet statement concluded.

 

 

Edited by: Creamer Media Reporter
 
 
 
 
 
Hide Comments  
 
Readers Comments
 
image image
Yes, we need coal to develop our nation, but 10% of our coal is burnt to power aluminum smelters - raw aluminum ore is shipped in by first world nations, melted with our dirty coal power, and shipped out again. Effectively we're allowing them to use us, to export their carbon problem to us, while we are being made to look stupid as we refuse carbon caps. So, stop the aluminum smelters now, accept carbon caps, and we'll have clean air and a clean conscience, and be welcomed in the world.
image image 
image
Mark on 11 Sep 09
image image
1) I couldn't agree more with shutting down the high carbon-emission, low-employment aluminum smelters. 2) The problem with trying to maintain the current growth trajectories without addressing carbon emissions means that we WILL NOT achieve our long term growth trajectories BECAUSE of the future costs to our economy from the effects of climate change. It is short sighted to think we can carry on in a "business-as-usual" growth paradigm without reducing emissions and establishing a truly sustainable development pathway, which may not necessarily focus on increasing GDP. 3) Leaving DoE and DST out of the Climate Change Committee is just silly.
image image 
image
User not found. on 11 Sep 09
image image
Leaving the DoE and DST out of the Climate Change Comittee sends a pretty clear message about how unimportant the government considers this issue. With over 70% of SA's carbon emissions directly attributable to two companies - ESKOM and SASOL - any meaningful emissions reduction program would have to start with those two. The involvement of the DST would also be crucial to increasing R&D of renewable technologyand technology transfer to enable a viable homegrown sustainable energy industry to develop.
image image 
image
James Unit on 11 Sep 09