‘Green Tax’ on imported vehicles to be implemented

South Africa’s National Treasury has confirmed that they intend to go ahead with the implementation of a carbon emission tax on imported vehicles from the 1st of March 2010.

The tax will be levied at the following rates:

• 8% on vehicles emitting greenhouse gasses of 240 grams per kilometre
• 10,7% on 280 grams per kilometre
• 12% on 300 grams per kilometre
• 0% for emissions of less than 120 grams per kilometre.

These taxes will be partly offset by a reduction in the import duties of vehicles.

There is big unhappiness from the National Association of Automobile Manufacturers of SA (NAAMSA) about the tax, partly because the fuel sold in South Africa does not comply with the new technological requirements necessary to avoid the green tax.Importers are aware of this shortcoming in South Africa’s fuel and subsequently do not fit the vehicles with the latest technology.

About R40bn will have to be invested in local refineries to make production of cleaner fuel possible. Once a final decision has been taken on the issue it will take about another five years before the fuel will be available across the market.

Original article: Fin24.com on 17 January 2010. Read here…

Jeremy Baskin – SA has compelling reasons to cut hothouse emissions

SA has no detailed climate change policy, as the government acknowledges. It is too late to develop one before next month’s Copenhagen conference. This is disappointing, given that SA is a Group of 20 economy and the world’s 13th-biggest CO² emitter, but not fatal as long as detailed, informed policy measures are in the pipeline.

Most troubling is SA appears to be going into Copenhagen with a position arguably not in the national interest, nor in the interests of combating climate change. It is also hard to square with some of the strong policy signals given by the government to date.

I write as a South African living abroad, who has for the past eight years worked on issues of climate, development and business risk and watched the policy debates in a number of countries closely.

Southern Africa is likely to be among the world’s hardest-hit regions when it comes to the physical, human and economic effects of climate change. These effects will vary between regions, districts, towns and suburbs (the details urgently need more research). But all indications are that changes in temperature, weather patterns and rainfall are likely to be especially nasty in Southern Africa and affect the livelihood and physical existence of millions of people. So SA has a strong self-interest in achieving the maximum possible mitigation and the highest possible global emission-reduction targets.

Without cuts from all major emitters, including developing countries such as China, the biosphere won’t get the reprieve it needs to avoid dangerous climate change. It is vital to encourage deep cuts by China, the US and Europe, which together account for more than 55% of global emissions. Our focus in international talks should be on maximising the extent of overall global mitigation.

In relation to global mitigation targets, it is in our interests to bridge the developed/

developing country divide, notwithstanding our historic and emotional identification with the Third World. There is, of course, a real issue of climate justice. The argument is ethically persuasive that most developing countries are not responsible for historic emissions, and they need emissions headroom to develop and financial assistance to adapt.

This is the position adopted by the African bloc, and argued strongly by, among others, India and China. There is certainly a valid argument to be made by, say, Mali or Bangladesh or even India (which emits less than two tones of CO² per capita a year).

These are all poor countries using less than their share of a scientifically credible global carbon budget. On any consideration of equity, they deserve our support for special consideration. But even China (with about half SA’s per capita emissions) is not a credible member of this group, a fact it implicitly recognises when it makes major emissions- reduction commitments even as it avoids the language of targets.

We delude ourselves to think we are in this special category. We are already a high-emissions country, one of the highest per capita emitters both historically and today. The science now suggests that, if we are to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change, the biosphere can only tolerate concentrations closer to 350ppm than to the more commonly cited 450ppm. This, in turn, equates to a global carbon budget of about two or three tones per capita emissions by 2050, about a fifth of SA’s current emissions.

Other than in the very short term, we will not get away with the argument some in government are voicing, that we be allowed to increase emissions in the name of development and get financial assistance to cut later. We will be accused, as the middle class is in India, of “hiding behind the poor”. Not only will we not get away with it, but we risk undermining our primary interest, which is to see the highest possible global mitigation efforts. The most we can expect, and what we should push for, is some financial assistance to transition to a low-carbon economy now.

It is true that our average emissions, like our middle-income country status, conceal deep inequalities. This is an argument for ensuring our domestic adaptation and mitigation policies, at the very least, reduce inequality. It is not an argument for being given space to ramp up our emissions. Many countries have seen growth and development and still have lower emission profiles today than we do — South Korea, Brazil, and post- war Japan to name but a few.

To be credible in pushing for global reduction SA needs strong domestic mitigation targets. From outside it appears SA may be diluting its previously announced targets. This would be unfortunate. “Growth and development first, climate later” may be in the interests of the fossil fuel industry, or convenient for politicians facing other challenges. But it is a false dichotomy ultimately not in the national economic interest.

The truth is that globally we are seeing the emergence of a price on carbon. The price is still low, but the trend is clear and it is upwards. As one of the world’s most carbon- intensive economies, SA is highly exposed. Traditionally, we have used the lure of cheap electricity to attract investment and mineral- beneficiation projects. We are unlikely to do so in future if our electricity remains carbon intensive. Future aluminium smelters, for example, will gravitate to countries such as Iceland, Brazil or New Zealand, which have extensive geothermal or hydropower.

Our exports are vulnerable. Markets such as Japan, the US, Germany, China and the UK have signalled their carbon pricing intentions. A carbon tariff is emerging. Agricultural producers and component suppliers will have been asked by customers to account for the carbon-intensity of their products. If SA’s wine producers, for example, are not already planning to slash their footprint and lobby the government for low-carbon electricity they should sleep uneasily in the knowledge that their competitors in other countries are.

Given SA’s unemployment, the evidence globally is that renewable energy is substantially more employment friendly per megawatt hour or per rand invested than carbon-intensive alternatives. Viewed from afar, it is impressive SA is putting so much effort into fleshing out its climate policies and starting to pay more attention to the neglected challenge of adaptation. The devil will be in the detail and affected by electricity- sector investment, support for renewables at scale (such as pilot concentrated solar power plants), energy efficiency regulation, forestry policy, tax incentives, and so on.

It is in our interests to transition to a low- carbon economy sooner rather than later. notwithstanding our deep reliance on the resources sector, the best hope for the future is a low carbon one. It is not an easy route, and will involve higher energy prices and difficult structural changes. Handled skilfully it could also help to reduce inequality in the country. Those who argue, in relation to climate, “not us, not much, and not now” are being shortsighted and do the country a disservice.

* Jeremy Baskin is the Director of Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership’s Australian office.

Original article: Jeremy Baskin. Business Day. 9 November 2009. Read more…

Andrew Revkin – Thought Experiments on Birth and Death

At the Business and Environment Programme’s 15-year anniversary held in London on 29 June 2009, Madame Dr. Baige Zhao,Vice Minister: Population and National Family Planning Commission of People’s Republic of China, pointed out that China’s population policies have since 1970 lead to 400 million fewer births in that country. This has significantly reduced the stress on the environment and carbon emissions as the annual CO2 emissions of these 400 million Chinese would have been about 1520 million tons (based on China’s current 3,8 tons per capita per year CO2 emissions).

Against this backdrop, there was a very interesting recent blog by Andrew Revkin of the New York Times. In response to earlier comments by Revkin that programs offering family planning information and services to women seeking smaller families had a climate value by avoiding emissions of greenhouse gases, Rush Limbaugh commented:

This guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?

In 2010 the Cambridge Resilience Forum will present a session on population and sustainability.

Original article: Andrew Revkin. New York Times. 20 October 2009. Read the article here…

Paul Gilding – The Climate Giant Awakes. Have we turned a corner?

Regular readers may be a little surprised by this column. I am regularly arguing that the science shows we are inevitably approaching, or may have past, a tipping point where widespread, rolling ecological and economic crises take hold.

But there’s another critical tipping point, of a very different character – where the world’s political and business leaders turn firmly towards action. Here’s the surprise – I think we may be at this tipping point already.

Scientists have become increasingly alarmed in recent years, as climate change reality has raced ahead of the political response. They point to countless examples of accelerating feedbacks, such as the reduction in the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 and rapid Arctic melting.

While they regularly point these out to our political masters, many of them express despair at the slow response.

So on what basis do I think the global political system has started to turn?

I think we have recently seen a number of developments that, taken together, indicate a profound shift is under way. When such a shift takes hold, it will rapidly accelerate – with significant implications for campaign and business strategy in this area over the years ahead.

The most significant and encouraging shift is what Tom Friedman in his recent NYT column called the shift from Red China to Green China. The Chinese leadership has for many years been talking about the need to act on climate but has in recent months shown serious potential to lead on this issue.

The rationale for them to do so is certainly there. As they have reeled under the negative economic and social impacts of pollution, China has accepted that the growth model followed by Western capitalism cannot work for them. Will they now pursue clean energy so vigorously they will dominate this new global market? Could climate even provide the issue on which China can manifest its global leadership ambitions?

I increasingly think the answer to both questions is likely to be yes, with far reaching economic and geopolitical implications. There is a good summary of recent developments and this potential for leadership, including China’s potential to see its emissions peak by 2030 in the article “Peaking Duck” by the Centre for American Progress’ Julian L. Wong.

Another important indicator is the recognition in the US political debate that the strength of the Chinese response is an economic threat to the US. The fear is growing that the resistance to change in the US may leave that economy floundering in what will be the largest economic transformation in history. As argued by Tom Friedman in the column referred to earlier, while America is currently strong on innovation, research ultimately follows the market. Friedman pointed out that “America’s premier solar equipment maker, Applied Materials, is about to open the world’s largest privately funded solar research facility — in Xian, China.”

The goal posts are also shifting in the science. An increasing number of scientists are coming to the view that the global CO2 target should be closer to 350ppm rather than 450ppm. In recent months we’ve seen this get global credence in response to the 350.org campaign, with eminent figures like the climate economist Nicholas Stern and the IPCC Chair Pachauri coming out in personal support of the 350 target. They would both be well aware that such a target would require cuts far more dramatic than anything on the table now. With such a goal, the task becomes the elimination of net CO2 emissions from the economy rather than their reduction.

At a deeper level, Stern also lent his considerable intellectual weight to the debate on economic growth, stating what was previously heresy – that economic growth itself must now be questioned. He recently put the case that there were probably only 20 years left for further economic growth before the earth was full.

Equally important as these scientific and political developments are shifts in the business community. While debates are raging in Western economies including in the US, Japan and Australia on climate policy, there are signs of a profound underlying shift emerging in corporate attitudes. Symbolising this in the United States is the rapid withdrawal of major companies from the US Chamber of Commerce over their lobbying against action to regulate greenhouse gases. In recent weeks, major corporates such as PG&E and Apple have resigned, Nike has quit the Board of the organisation and GE and Johnson & Johnson have both publicly distanced themselves from the Chamber’s anti-climate action lobbying efforts.

Another example was a recent initiative by Cambridge Program for Sustainability Leadership’s Corporate Leaders Group, with 500 companies signing on to the Copenhagen Communiqué which endorsed strong action on climate by the world’s governments including keeping warning below 2 degrees and urging early action. “There is nothing to be gained by delay”, the communiqué states.

Many other countries previously in the background on the global climate debate like Indonesia (which is the world’s 3rd largest net emitter due to its extensive deforestation) recently announced its intention to cut emissions by 26% by 2020 compared to Business As Usual and by 41% if they get international financial support to go further. They also believe they can turn their forests into a net carbon sink by 2030.

And of course there is a storm of grassroots campaigning erupting around the world in the lead up to Copenhagen with campaigns like 350.org and many others.

Many of you will have the correct response that these are all only words – that we are yet to see action of real substance. That’s certainly true. Words are early signs, not conclusive evidence. But I think I can smell it now, and when these things do turn, they do so remarkably quickly – as we saw when governments responded to the recent financial crisis.

Of course this does not mean we can relax and it will all be OK! The climate system is now rapidly descending into crisis and the consequences will be felt for decades even with strong action now. What it does indicate however is that we will not be the proverbial boiling frogs who just sit here passively as the system collapses around us. It is only early signs of the turn, but it gives us an indication of what’s coming.

So we mustn’t back off, not even a little bit, with the pressure being applied to the system to encourage change. But we should perhaps reconsider tactics.

I think some of our energy should be focused for example on developing an emergency plan to fix the climate. The science clearly lays out what a stable climate looks like and it requires the elimination of net CO2 emissions from the economy within decades. Any rational analysis says this is going to require the equivalent of a war plan to achieve it. In future columns I’ll be saying a great deal more on that topic.

But for now, take a look around. The world is turning our way and while the crisis is still coming, the crisis response may not be as far behind it as we thought.

Original article: Paul Gilding. www.paulgilding.com. 8 October 2009. Read it…

Editor’s workshop on climate change

Climate Change: The biggest story ever?

A Workshop for South African Editors with Global and Local Experts
Park Hyatt Hotel, Rosebank, Thursday 6th August 2009

In Copenhagen in December the world will negotiate a new agreement on climate change and carbon emissions that will profoundly affect South Africa’s development in the next decades. What can we expect from this negotiation and what are its implications for South Africa’s economy in the years to come?

Up till now human-induced Climate Change has been regarded by most media and politicians as an ‘environmental’ issue. This view is fast becoming dangerously inaccurate. The growing involvement of all major governments and many of the world’s largest companies in finding ways to mitigate this turbulence indicates that Climate Change is now a central economic and social issue, capable of dramatically altering political and economic landscapes over the coming years.

What confronts South Africa? Who is doing what to develop a coherent response? And what might the media’s role be? These and other questions will be addressed during a workshop for editors and senior journalists hosted by Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership (CPSL) on 6 August 2009.

The day features contributions by James Smith, Chairman of Shell UK, and a veritable line-up of local climate experts including three contributors to the 4th UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report of 2007.

A further highlight of the day is a visit by British Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change, Mr. Ed Milliband.

The workshop is funded by the Danish government in support of its hosting the UN climate change negotiations in Copenhagen.

The day’s programme consist of two parts: A breakfast session with inputs from two leading voices on climate change and business; and small group discussions with local climate scientists, policy experts and business leaders facilitated by Peter Willis & Richard Calland.

For any further details, you can get in touch with Magda de Kok at magda.dekok@cpsl.cam.ac.uk or 021 469 4765.

Full ‘One Degree War’ interview

This is the full interview (27 minutes) by Peter Willis, Director of CPSL South Africa, with Paul Gilding and Prof Jorgen Randers on their ‘One Degree War’ plan.

A 5-minute edited version with more background is available here…

Video: One degree war plan

Peter Willis, Director of CPSL South Africa, interviews Prof. Jorgen Randers and Paul Gilding, long-standing Core Faculty members of the Business & the Environment Programme and thought-leaders at this year’s BEP seminar in Cape Town.

Jorgen and Paul believe is it inevitable that society will at some point in the next decade demand a much more dramatic response to climate change than is currently on the cards, given the reality of the risk it poses. The interview outlines their radical “One Degree War Plan”, which is the type of response they believe will be demanded in due course. The Plan was “premiered” at our BEP seminar and has generated tremendous interest. This insert will be shown on SABC 2′ “50-50″ programme on Monday 1 June at ’09 19:30. (Full transcript below)

Produced by: Charles Moore

TRANSCRIPT
PETER:
I’m talking to Professor Jorgen Randers from the Norwegian School of Management, and Paul Gilding, climate activist and faculty member of the Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership.

I believe you’ve been in some discussions to develop a global strategy in relation to climate change.

PAUL:
We notice this incredible disconnect between what the scientists are saying, which is that we clearly face a risk of catastrophic civilisation and economic collapse. Clearly that’s not the most likely outcome but it’s certainly a possibility. And the science is getting increasingly urgent on that issue, and yet you don’t see that kind of response from the public or from government at all, despite incredible change in the debate in recent years.

And so we thought, well logically there’s just a lag. Because logically will therefore come at some part where there’ll be a great awakening on the issue. And the public and the elites, we think will virtually, suddenly wake up and say, “Oh my God! There is actually a risk of complete economic collapse and very severe consequences for society. We have to fix the problem?”

And so we thought, let’s work out that plan. Then when it’s needed, and which we think, our best guesstimate is kinda 2018 or thereabouts, and we call it the “One Degree War” plan.

PETER:
And why a “One Degree War” plan? What’s the one degree about?

PAUL:
Because the general consensus in the scientific and policy community is that the target, the best we can hope for is a 450 part per million cap on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and that gives us a 50/50 chance of not passing two degrees… two degrees of warming, and two degrees of warming actually is the tipping point in most scientific studies that says beyond that point we get into very scary territory of runaway climate change or runaway greenhouse impacts, and catastrophic, cascading consequences down the line.

PETER:
That sounds like quite a steep challenge, given that most policy’s aiming, if we’re really lucky, at two degrees. So what’s the plan?

JORGEN:
Reduce by 50% during a strong effort, the climate war, from 2018 to 2023, and then a further 15 years where we cut dramatically, and then in a carbon negative territory for the rest of the century.

PETER:
Take me through each of those stages. What’s involved in the climate war? The first five years?

JORGEN:
Step number one is basically to reduce logging by 50%. A second step would be to ban half of the driving. So you basically say to people that you have a certain rationing. So you can drive your car a certain amount but not further. At the same time of course one starts the longer term task of shifting the car fleet from fossil cars, running on gasoline, to electric cars running on CO2-free electricity.

A third activity – you cut airplane flights by 50% again. So you basically strand half of the flights of the world. Much more powerful would be to take the world’s 6000 largest power stations and identify the ones that actually emit a lot of CO2, and close them down.

PETER:
Isn’t there going to be huge resistance? I mean, how could people possibly agree to do these things?

PAUL:
If people could imagine mass starvation because the climate changes so rapidly that food supplies collapse, then having to ration your petrol, suddenly becomes a lot more viable.

And so you’ve got to imagine a context, very clearly of a very scared public – of very scared political leaders who are saying, ‘hang on’. On my watch decisions are going to be made which could lead to the collapse of civilisation, and certainly are going to otherwise lead to some very severe economic collapse. With massive dislocation of people, loss of jobs, loss of value in society. And then suddenly a “planned” reduction of this type, even with that level of sacrifice – like a war – is going to be a price the public is going to support paying, relative to the alternative.

JORGEN:
And so the more you think about this, the more attractive the one degree war actually starts to become, and then you can start asking the question, why doesn’t this happen by itself quickly?

And of course that’s the real core problem. It’s a decision problem, very much more than it’s an execution problem. So, if one simply decided to start the war, implementing it would be fine. There would be little suffering, but there would be great excitement and this is highly do-able. And so it is just a question of getting going. But this, alas, will take some time because there is still not that type of fear in the population.

PETER:
But it seems to me one of the strengths of your proposal is that you’re not saying that this must happen now. You’re saying, we think this needs ten years of preparation, then it will be needed because then people will be ready.

And my… I find myself thinking as I’m sitting here that of course, once this plan gets out and people start debating it and thinking, well how feasible is it and so on, that I think, well why must we wait ten years? Why don’t we perhaps do it in three?

Renewable feed-in tariffs announced

In a much anticipated move, NERSA has approved feed-in tariffs for renewable energy that will encourage investment by private power producers.

“The approved REFIT guidelines will create an enabling environment for achieving the government’s 10,000 GWh renewable energy target by 2013 and sustaining growth beyond the target,” Thembani Bukula, regulator member for electricity regulation, said in a statement.

The following tariffs have been agreed for South Africa:

• R1.25 for each killowatt hour produced from wind,
• R0.94 for the same from hydro,
• R0.90 rand for electricity from landfill gas and
• R2.10 for power from concentrated solar.

These rates are significantly higher than the R.60 – R0.74 range proposed in a December ’08 consultation paper.

According to NERSA the tariff will be reviewed every year for the first five years and every three years after that. Tariffs will only apply to new projects.

SA may have renewable feed-in tariff by March

The National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) hopes to finally approve the long-awaited renewable energy feed-in tariff (Refit), aimed at stimulating investment in the sector, on 9 March 2009.

Owing to the currently more expensive cost of generating electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind, sun and natural gas, feed-in tariffs are seen as a structure to stimulate large-scale investment in the renewable energy sector.

The Refit would not lower the cost of electricity for the customer, but would subsidise renewable energy generators. The tariff was expected to cover the cost of generation, plus a fair return for investors.

“The model calculates the subsidy amount as the difference between the feed-in tariff provided, and the avoided cost of power generation. This gives an indication of the additional costs to the consumer of the tariff programme,” indicated Nersa.

The model also allowed for the inclusion of carbon revenue through the Clean Development Mechanism.

The tariff schedule for 2008 to 2013 as setout in the consultation paper would be as follows:

wind power 65,48c/kWh in 2008, steadily decreasing by 2,45% a year to 57,84c/kWh in 2013;

hydro-power 73,76c/kWh in 2008, decreasing 0,57% a year to 71,69c/kWh in 2013;

landfill gas, 43,21c/kWh in 2008, decreasing 1,16% a year to 40,75c/kWh in 2013;

concentrating solar, 60,64c/kWh in 2008, lowered by 1% a year to 57,67c/kWh in 2013.

Eskom Distribution would be appointed the renewable energy purchasing agency, with the responsibility of the regulator limited to overall monitoring and review.

The NERSA proposal is not without its critics: WWF climate change programme manager Richard Worthington stated: “We have called on Nersa to reconsider their proposal and call for the tabling of an improved proposal, as soon as possible. We hope to see a stronger proposal that provides for an independent renewable energy purchasing agency, and a more cost responsive way of setting tariffs.”

Original article: Christy van der Merwe. Engineering News. 5 January 2009. Read more…

Earthlife Africa has come out to say that while they support the principle behind REFIT, they have some concerns about the actual policy. They set forth 10 reccomendation on how to improve the draft policy.

You can read more here.