Fever is rising for Copenhagen, as delegates and key global players in the climate field descend on the Danish capital in readiness for the official opening of the 15th Conference of the Parties on Monday. Expectations have rollercoastered in the last few weeks, with negative sentiment peaking when it was plausible Obama would not attend and the key emitters, namely the USA, China and India were yet to stipulate plans regarding emissions reductions.

The recent email scandal from the Climate Research Unit based at the University of East Anglia and James Hansen, NASA’s head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, vehemently stressing the talks ‘must fail’ will add further dent to expectations.  However pledges for emissions cuts, announced by the USA and China and the anticipation that India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh will today announce cuts in carbon intensity by 24 percent in 2020, bring hope. The cumulative result of these pledges is a positive signal that the COP could deliver a tangible structure for an agreement by the closing on December 19th.

One of the most contentious issues likely to dominate the discussions is the standoff between developing and developed countries, referred to as Annex 1 under the existing Kyoto Agreement. The key emerging emitters from the developing world, China, India, Brazil and South Africa have remained firm that developed countries must provide finance and technology to help developing nations fight global warming. This was further reaffirmed this week in Copenhagen, when the key negotiators from these four countries indicated after a preparatory meeting that they would represent a “different position” compared to a separate outline for the global climate talks by Denmark.

After a recent meeting in Beijing it also emerged that this group at Copenhagen will formally ask “developed countries to assume responsibility for emissions reduction targets in the second commitment period (from 2013)”. As Kim Carstensen, head of WWF’s Global Climate Initiative, further advocated “the developed world needs to have deeper emissions cuts, more new money on the table and much more willingness to share the technologies for low carbon development”. Developed nations are however adamant that this group of big emerging economies must also commit to mandatory emissions cuts.

Arguing aside, the fact remains that the world must cut its emissions, by around 80% of 1990 levels by 2050 if any form of climate stabilization is to be achieved.  Nonetheless discussions are likely to stumble and potentially get deadlocked over the issue of historical responsibility. This issue of ‘burden sharing’ is hugely sensitive as it ultimately involves responsibility to give money, billions of dollars of it, needed for low carbon investment and in adaptation funding, especially in key areas vulnerable to the onslaught of climate change.

Developing countries will not vacillate over the need for comprehensive adaptation funding, and will not compromise on the need for this to be in addition to official development assistance (ODA). The EU’s negotiators recent written blunder, referring that they “cannot accept reference to ‘additional to’, and ’separate from’ ODA targets” could gravely undermine discussions on this issue.

In addition to the issue of funding, developing countries will be pressing for a firm agreement on Reduced Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation (REDD), where large swathes of land covered by forests of high biodiversity have the potential to earn countries money by keeping forests standing. However, as with many negotiations at Copenhagen, issues need to be ironed out with regards to the details.  A major hurdle for REDD is corruption and mismanagement in the forestry industry in developing countries. For example this costs Indonesia, which has one of the highest deforestation rates, two billion US dollars a year, equivalent to its entire health budget as a Human Rights Watch report released on Tuesday indicated. Many feel the negotiations surrounding REDD are fundamental if Copenhagen is to achieve anything, and will be hoping there is not a ‘no deal’ on this.

I will be traveling to Copenhagen for the second week of deliberations to cover issues related to developing countries.

The announcement, made by the World Bank on the sidelines of the UN climate meeting taking place in Barcelona, will bring music to the ears of the millions of Africans suffering from climatic changes.  The decision made by the trustees of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF), will commit $1.1 billion dollars to six African nations.  The choice of benefiting countries illustrates both Africa’s opportunity and potential international competitiveness within the emerging low-carbon economy but also its extreme vulnerability and limited adaptive capacity to the implications of climate change. 

The six nations will receive the money in a combination of grants or low-interest loans from the CIF which was launched in 2008, and has pledges of over $6 billion dollars to date. The CIF is a collaboration of public development financiers and is run jointly by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the International Finance Corporation and World Bank.

Leading Africa’s position in renewable energy and energy efficiency investments, South Africa will receive US$500 million which will be channelled into helping the country achieve its ambitious target of 4% renewable energy generation by 2013.   The money will be instrumental if South Africa is to achieve the target of a 12% increase in energy efficiency by 2015, a difficult task considering its dependence on coal.  Another large benefactor, Egypt, which is set to get $300 million dollars will also utilise the money to improve its power sector and the urban transport system in Cairo which is grossly under prepared to serve one of the world’s largest cities of over 17 million people.

A promising development for climate investment and possible innovation in low carbon growth is the pledge of US$150 million to Morocco for a fund dedicated to low carbon growth.  The fund will also boost energy security, a development which is likely to be viewed with keen interest from investors in the DesertTec Foundation. 

The climate finance will not all be focused on large scale infrastructure, with some of the money for South Africa dedicated to the distribution of solar water heating to millions of households, especially those with no access to electricity and in remote rural locations.

The CIF also earmarked between US$60 million and US$70 million for individual grants to Mozambique, Niger and Zambia which the World Bank felt all ‘shared dramatic risks in potential loss of land, life and livelihoods as a result of climate change’. These countries will utilise the money to pilot an initiative aimed at creating ‘resilience strategies’ against the impacts of climate change. 

With hopes fading for a comprehensive climate treaty as the clock ticks down to Copenhagen, increasing focus will be placed on interim measures and incremental agreements that can be formalised at Copenhagen.  Coming just six weeks before the summit, the United Nations Environment Program Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) is hosting its Global Roundtable in Cape Town.  The first time the event has been hosted in Africa, the Roundtable, which opens this evening, aims to partner environmental groups under the umbrella of UNEP with representatives of the financial sector and provide a forum for discussing and setting new agendas for sustainable finance.

 The summits focus, ‘Financing Change, Changing Finance’ is timely, especially in lieu of flagging momentum for a comprehensive agreement at Copenhagen. Governments and political momentum has illustrated its weakness this year in overcoming major barriers to enacting an agreement at Copenhagen, for example Congress’s inability to implement and legislate binding targets on emissions has resulted in many feeling Copenhagen might be a wasted opportunity before it has begun. This does however mean focus may now shift more in favour of the private sector, which has an opportunity to show what collaborative and innovative financing architecture can achieve. 

The volatility of the finance and evolving capital markets means there is no simple step to implementing sustainable financing mechanism, especially with regards to ecosystem services where there is not a fixed or easily measurable metric or asset. However the planetary implications of climate change and global ecosystem loss mean there is momentum to get discussions on the table and integrate climate, poverty and social dimensions into financing mechanisms.

The Roundtable will have wide representation from major financial institutions including Peter Blom, CEO of Triodos, the Financial Times Sustainable Bank of the Year as well as a host of South African and international private banks, financial analyst firms, global players in the insurance business and suite of the leading global environmental NGOs like the WWF. The event is unique in bringing together top calibre financing institutions and venture capitalists with the leading brains behind innovations in environmental finance like Pavan Sukhdev, the ‘Stern’ of ecosystem services, as study leader for The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB).

The timing of the event and amalgamation of speakers and attendees means there is an opportunity to deliver some hope before Copenhagen in working towards incremental financing mechanisms. One hopes the ‘butterfly effect’ of changing finance can inspire the existing political barriers in building momentum before Copenhagen.

This week, many South Africans, like millions of other climate conscious citizens around the world, are preparing for the Global Day of Action on Saturday the 24^th.  The day, which is focused on citizen action and engagement, has been organised by 350.org, an advocacy organisation promoting global action to tackle climate change.

Many parts of South Africa are feeling the increasing impacts of climate change such as shifting vegetation zones, erratic rainfall and seasonal temperature anomalies, particularly evident in arid areas.

The aim of global action day is to engage citizens in the science of climate change, hence the reference to 350 which is used as the recommended baseline with regards to carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.  Figures for 2009 indicate that levels are already at 390ppm, hence the urgency in curbing emissions growth and aiming for stabilisation at 350ppm.  Although there is much debate within the worlds elite climate modellers’ about correct targets and the use of temperature or concentration, 350.org have used the 350 figure as their campaign theme.  Bill McKibben, organiser of the 350 group is cognisant of the complexity in the climate system dynamics and says the 350 figure gives campaigners a metric to work with.  The 350 initiative has big name support with endorsement from Al Gore, Sir Nicholas Stern and Rajendra Pachuari, it is therefore an effective viaduct between local campaigns and their influence on political action.

The 350 figure will form the centre of many of the global actions planned for the 24^th of October.  South Africans will be engaging in a variety of demonstrations including a meeting at Johannesburg’s Emmerentia dam, where people are encouraged to dress at superheroes to represent the need to save the planet.  At Muizenberg Beach, Cape Town’s surf mecca, giant blocks of ice in the shape of a 350 will be melted and a freeze frame movie made. Cape Town’s largest township, Khayelitsha, located in the Cape Flats region, will be holding a ‘blue under the sea event’ where blue clothing will signify the areas vulnerability to flooding and predicted sea level rise. Activities will also be taking place on the beach front in Durban where sand, art and music will be the focus to inspire action on climate. In addition an open letter will be circulated, lobbying President Jacob Zuma to attend the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

The global day of action, aimed at lobbying the global political agenda is particularly timely and prudent. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently told Newsweek he felt the prospects of states agreeing to anything at Copenhagen was ‘looking worse and worse’.  Consequently the more national citizens can engage with their political leadership the more momentum will grow before Copenhagen. As Gordon Brown, at the recent Major Economics Forum in London reiterated, there is a need to break the leadership ‘impasse’ as there was no ‘Plan B’ in the absence of united firm agreement at Copenhagen.

 The South African Council of Churches (SACC) has recently launched a document citing the challenges climate change poses to churches in South Africa and the response that is needed. Churches, as with multiple public and private sector organisations and associations, are critically analysing their part in tackling climate change.  In light of this many church groups have become highly engaged and vocal in their commitments to tackling climate change.

The document released by SACC refers to the importance of the Conference of the Parties meeting in Copenhagen in December and the need for direct leadership and impact on climate change.  This follows on from the work of the All Africa Conference of Churches at the Bali Conference in 2007, calling for ‘responsible church leadership’.  The momentum in church leadership on the issue of climate change has grown exponentially, especially in lieu of Copenhagen.  The Lutheran World Federation is currently holding their annual summit in Nairobi, with climate change being a key issue.  This follows on from a mandate from the World Council of Churches encouraging discourse on significant climate policy issues.

The impact of engagement by the church in climate issues should not be understated, especially in developing countries. In terms of total congregation attendees, South Africa is fourth highest in the world and associations like the World Lutheran Federation have wide global presence. Countries like Nigeria, with huge emerging populations, and over 16 million Catholics alone, can utilise the Church as an effective method of education and support for pro climate policy and incremental changes.  The value of information from the church, illustrated by the SACC’s most recent documentation, is the emphasis placed on the individual and the impacts consumer change and individual behaviour can have.  

South Africa is not alone in targeting climate change action through religious entities. ‘Eco-Congregation’ in Scotland has just published a report ‘Climate Change: managing your carbon footprint’.  The aim of the document is to initiate enthusiasm across congregations in Scotland and to educate them on the Climate Change Act (Scotland). The Church of England is also engaged in a ‘Shrinking the Footprint’ initiative, which through the Climate Justice Fund encourages parishes and diocesans to calculate their carbon footprint.  The United Church of Canada is another example where positive climate change lobbying is occurring. The Church is currently engaged in promoting its’ Kyotoplus petition which calls for the Canadian government to make strong commitments to climate action in the run up to the Copenhagen negotiations. The church has also been proactive in chairing a ‘Week of Action’ which takes place from the 17^th – 26^th October and aims to highlight linkages between justice and climate policy.  

Although church attendance continues to drop in many Western countries, the opposite trend is occurring across many developing nations, where the church is hugely influential. Consequently much value can be gained through these activities, as the message often given through the church is the need for a metanoia, a fundamental change of mind.  Key Policy makers would do well to take heed of this message at Copenhagen if any of the expectations are to be fulfilled.

Voters in South Africa’s 5^th democratic election will mainly be concerned by a 21% unemployment rate, fundamental problems with service provision and the economy’s track for 2009, but for a few climate change will be on their agenda.

The African National Congress (ANC) leader Jacob Zuma is widely anticipated to become the next President of South Africa with a sweeping two thirds majority.  The emergence of the Congress of the People (COPE) and the strengthening power of the Democratic Alliance has reignited the democratic process in South Africa and  polling stations are anticipating record number of voters.  Zuma, a populist anti-apartheid hero has ascended from being a stalwart freedom fighter with the exiled ANC during the apartheid regime to becoming the probable next president.

The manifesto of the ANC focuses on climate change through the promotion of ‘green jobs’ and if successful the ANC must maintain the promise of the resolution made in Polokwane, to ‘develop and invest in programs’ to create the green jobs, especially prudent with South Africa’s high unemployment rate. Ironically despite the huge failings of the ANC in service provision to the poorest citizens of South Africa it is this demographic group which remains stalwart in their support for Zuma and the ANC.

The ANC have framed their focus on climate change on the public works programme on energy efficiency and renewable energy for job provision.  This is where COPE comes out stronger as they aim to ensure the Expanded Public Works Programme must be successful in the creation of work to ‘clean and green’ the environment’.  However their manifesto doesn’t make explicit links to climate change which has to compete against the prioritization on a list of ‘important global challenges’ including reform of the United Nations of transnational organized crime, international terrorism.  Placing climate issues amongst these weighty and largely intangible problems to solve significantly weakens their commitment to earnestly implement climate policy.

If predictions are correct and the Democratic Alliance (DA) is able to secure a victory in the Western Cape, the ‘mother city’ - Cape Town, seriously afflicted by water shortages and predicted declines in the annual winter rainfall may be lucky with a stronger commitment by the DA to climate and energy issues.  These are both mentioned in their manifesto and their commitment to ensuring that South Africa does not wait in its ‘response to the challenges of climate change’ is clear.  If my vote was based on climate policy the DA’s focus on mitigation, which will be fundamental to South Africa, illustrates a better understanding of the importance of a strong climate policy.  Their energy section supports the tariff and a roll out of one million solar water heaters, and ultimately my confidence lies in their understanding of the importance of establishing a price for carbon.

The smaller parties such as the Independent Democrats (ID) have a much clearer stance on climate change than the ANC, for example facing the fact that South Africa is the 14^th greatest emitter of greenhouse emissions and being explicit about the implications - flagging up biodiversity, water and salt- water intrusion impacts as key.  The ID’S manifesto is one of the best in terms of climate policy because of its clear proposition of renewable energy as the solution, and illustrating their appreciation of all forms they discuss ideas of radioactive waste disposal and radiation level studies at Koeberg, South Africa’s only nuclear energy facility.  The ID’s manifesto encapsulates the potential South Africa has in leading a global energy revolution and dominating the market for some technologies, namely solar thermal and solar photovoltaic’s.  Its value also comes in the proposition of applicable, tangible and necessary policy reforms that need to occur for example the ending of Eskom’s monopoly of electricity production, and the importance of implementing feed-in tariffs and investment in research and development into renewable technologies.

The smaller parties are also much more clear in their understanding of the intrinsic links between poverty and climate change, for example the Unites Democratic Movement (UDM) flags up soil erosion, water pollution and deforestation’ as a direct result of climate change.  However for the millions of South Africans that vote in the elections and take advantage of their democratic right, ganined through a tumultuous transition from the apartheid regime, most people will think of their basic individual needs not the collective need of South Africa’s climate.  Therefore Zuma’s personality, his history and character, have struck a chord in the hearts of millions of largely rural and poor voters.  One must put their faith that the largest party, despite having one of the weakest manifesto’s on climate policy will remain true to their statement on green jobs and do good in this way.

The G20 leaders standing for their

The G20 Summit in London has now concluded, with US President Obama filling the main press briefing room for an hour-long press session.  The main points of the summit for international and national climate policy are summarised below:

1. Overall: In the substantive elements of the summit outcomes there is little mention of climate change.  In the summary communiqué climate change is mentioned in the second-to-last and penultimate paragraphs only.  As Climatico’s Simon Billett asked UK Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, there is little evidence that this summit has been more than an agreement to agree in later meetings.
2. Forestry: UK Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, said that forestry was a fundamental element of the global climate programme.  Italy has agreed to hold specific discussions on it at the G8 in July 2009.  There was agreement from France, Australia, Italy, Germany, US on the need for a global forestry deal.  Forestry was a major point of discussion in the corridors between delegations.
3. USA Climate Policy: It remains unclear whether the Obama administration will require cuts from China and India for a ‘comprehensive’ COP15 deal.  Obama said that “further discussions” needed with China, and that the US recognises its role as leader of clean energy and tech for China and India.  Obama: “We need an interesting conversation on how to overcome this challenge… we need low carbon growth… a rapid deployment of technology across the world… the US needs to lead these countries into the low carbon energy future”.
4. Green Growth: The summit has done little to define green growth or encourage the use of best practice measures between G20 countries.  While para. 27 and 28 of the final communiqué do reaffirm the commitment to low carbon growth, the summit has done almost nothing to further definitions of what this might mean or how it should be achieved.

Geithner, Obama, and Brown

As expected, the global economy took center stage at the G20 Summit held yesterday in London. Amidst the world economic crisis, G20 leaders met to discuss and put forth a global plan for recovery. Included amongst the six pledges made by the leaders of the Group of Twenty was a pledge for a green and sustainable recovery. However, despite this pledge and the hopes of many demonstrators, the public, and officials, climate change and plans for a green recovery featured little in the day’s discussions.

Over the weekend, the official G20 communiqué leaked to the press and included only vague language on the topic of climate change. According to paragraphs 27 and 28 in the official communiqué:

27. We agreed to make the best possible use of investment funded by fiscal stimulus programmes towards the goal of building a resilient, sustainable, and green recovery. We will make the transition towards clean, innovative, resource efficient, low carbon technologies and infrastructure. We encourage the MDBs to contribute fully to the achievement of this objective. We will identify and work together on further measures to build sustainable economies.

28. We reaffirm our commitment to address the threat of irreversible climate change, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and to reach agreement at the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.

The vague language of the communiqué led to speculation that a “green stimulus” package might be less than concrete. This sentiment continued in the days leading up to the Summit.

Therefore, the day began with slightly lowered expectations for the one-day summit. Much of the morning for reporters was spent researching, writing, and watching leaders get their pictures taken. Anticipation and excitement began to grow as delegates sat down for their plenary session in the morning. However, not until close to 2:00 PM did green issues appear on the agenda with a press conference held by the UK Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband.

In the early afternoon, Miliband surprised reporters with a short press conference to brief them on the progress of climate change discussions and answer questions. Miliband stated that he was confident that the G20 Summit would provide forward movement towards Copenhagen in December. The discussions would serve to facilitate the process toward Copenhagen and would be used to make a statement to China and other developing countries that the United States, UK, and EU countries were committed to tackling climate change.

Climatico’s Simon Billett asked Miliband whether this talk of “first steps” was anything more than “agreeing to agree?” In response, Miliband stated that while the G20 summit was “essentially an economic summit,” among the G20 participants existed the understanding of the “mainstreaming [of] the green message.” Furthermore, Miliband said that countries such as Saudi Arabia and Russia are more likely to attach importance to renewables despite prior hesitation. “This is a significant step in mainstreaming low carbon development in economic recovery…The notion of low-carbon as a way out of recession has gone from being marginal to being mainstream.”

Miliband went on to say that forestry is a fundamental element in the climate program and will be discussed in Italy at the G8 meeting in July. Billett noted that forestry proved a major topic of conversation within the corridors of the Summit. Furthermore, private discussions between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd regarding the importance of including forestry in a global climate deal adds to the speculation that forestry will be a topic to watch in the months to come.

Despite Miliband’s press conference, the topic of climate change once again became quiet over much of the afternoon. During his speech, French President Nicholas Sarkozy failed to reference any discussion on the topic of the environment. And, despite Miliband’s enthusiasm, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown only restated that the G20 was committed to meet again later this year to discuss a Post-Kyoto climate deal.

However, U.S. President Barack Obama brought climate change back onto the floor during his press conference late in the day. Obama’s trip to London included several bilateral meetings with the leaders in attendance outside of the context of the G20. In response to a reporter’s question from the Times of India, Obama addressed a bilateral meeting he had with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Amongst other points of discussion, Obama and Singh touched on the issue of “energy and how important it is for the United States to lead by example in reducing our carbon footprint so that we can help to forge agreements with countries like China and India…for our efforts to control climate change.”

Obama alluded to future discussions on the topic of climate change with China. In addition, he recognized the challenges that lie ahead for the topic amidst the current economic crisis. “In some ways, our…European counterparts have moved more quickly than we have on this issue, but I think even the Europeans have recognized that it’s not easy. It’s even harder during times of economic downturn.” He went on to add, “We’re going to have to combine the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency with rapid technological advances. And to the extent that in some cases we can get international cooperation and pool our scientific and technical knowledge around things like developing coal sequestration, for example, that can be extremely helpful.”

Obama’s speech wrapped up the events of the day. However, despite a long day of meetings and press conferences at the G20 Summit, action towards green growth remained largely undefined. As to be expected, the world economic crisis was the star of the show and, therefore, plans to repair the global economy held the spotlight. Yet, often this subject turned to the discussion of bank regulation and executive pay rather than outlining plans for green growth. Despite all of this, environmentalists can rest assured that the international dialogue on climate change has begun to move forward. Furthermore, as demonstrated in Obama’s press conference, the United States appears onboard for further discussions and acknowledges its role as a leader and partner in reaching a climate change deal come December. Between Obama’s acknowledgement that the US must lead by example and Miliband’s enthusiasm for momentum, hopefully the G20 will prove a success for environmentalists, after all, by bringing in greater participation, particularly by China and India, at Copenhagen later this year. We shall have to wait and see.

Africa is set to be one of the most afflicted continents from the impacts of climate change. Compounding Africa’s fragile economic basis to deal with the consequences is the impact the global economic recession is having. The continent is set to lose $40 billion in 2009 as a result of stagnated growth, which continues to plummet as the crisis takes hold. The impacts of these loses are huge for the poorest of the poor living in the continent - equivalent to two weeks income for each of Africa’s 900 million people. The impacts of the crisis are wide and varying from crashing copper prices in Zambia to reduced tourism in Kenya.

It is crucial South Africa takes a purposeful and strong stance at the G20 summit due to the huge vulnerability of many African countries, however many debate the leverage it will have. The vulnerabilities are greatest within the most dependent nations especially those with weak budgets and Balance of Payments. It is essential South Africa is able to effectively highlight these needs at the G20 discussions as capital is desperately required, a trade deal must be secured and the Millennium Development Goals and their failures must be dealt with and reassessed. A huge challenge, considering the $30 billion shortfall in donations for the 2010 aid budgets. If there is no money pledged to the financial losses Africa will suffer in 2009, climate policy has no chance of entering in many national policy discourses across the continent despite the afflictions it will cause.

Both Britain and the Obama administration have promised action on Africa however the significance of the recession, existing Middle East conflicts and the need for a global climate deal with clock ticking towards Copenhagen may result in Africa’s woes being sidelined. South Africa needs to flag the importance of Africa in policy discussions, especially the potential for investment in line with Cap and Trade systems and a drive for energy efficiency, which has not been prevalent in most African nations. Nigeria for example as huge potential for solar investments with its climate yet the use of diesel generators is prevalent due to the dysfunctional state of the state run power grids. This highlights Africa’s inherent problem which the G20 discussions table is unlikely to make any impact on - huge potential that cannot be manifested due to corrupt and perfidious governance.

South Africa has a monumental responsibility at the G20 to attempt to prove to the world’s leading nations the role Africa can play in abating the recession and reestablishing the global economy. Potential lies in investments such as the huge potential for sustainable biofuels, appealing to many OECD nations in terms of energy security at low cost. If regulation allows economies like that of South Africa, the flagship for the continent, to be established many other nations will recognize the potential for investment funds in Africa’s emerging economies.

In order to capitalize on the discussions of the G20 South Africa needs to engage as determined leaders for the continent and display Africa’s readiness to be part of Obama’s ‘new foundation for prosperity.’ It needs to flag the issues of the budgetary hole in Africa’s account due to the recession and importantly Africa’s position in climate negotiations and the importance of strong policy in individual nation states. This is imperative, as the floods that are currently ravaging the Southern African drainage systems show the consequences climate change will have on the continent. Around 500,000 people have been affected with whole villages lost in Angola, Namibia and Zambia - further worsening the plight of vulnerable Africa citizens living on the edge of survival.

It is an imperative for South Africa to invest in renewable energy, a solution that could be both cost effective and necessary if the government is sincere in its efforts to abate climate change.  The target at present is 15% of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2020, however this target has thus far been addressed by meagre investment commitments.

Government climate policy commitments are not being emulated by current investments, especially not by Eskom, South Africa’s sole energy provider. Eskom has launched a 343 billion rand ($34.40 billion) new power investment program, with includes two 4,800 MW coal-fired power plants due to be operational in 2015 and 2016. Further compromising the government’s commitments to emissions reductions is the fact that CCS discussions are not being actively engaged in by Eskom, especially in line with the economic enormity of these new investments.

Eskom’s promotion of coal as the cheapest and quickest method to add new megawatts to the grid, is primarily to compensate for the acute shortfalls in provision since early 2008.  However an increasing recognition of the carbon externality attached to coal production makes renewable energies the only sustainable option that will ultimately end up saving the government billions of Rand. 

There is consensus on the risks South Africa’s credibility faces if it the country doesn’t implement promised renewable obligations and mandatory emissions reductions.  One of the greatest risks is the imposition of trade barriers for ‘dirty’ exports, especially important as more governments become cognisant of the embodied emissions related to commodity imports and how these may potentially play into national cap and trade schemes.   

The Department of Minerals and Energy draft regulations fall under the Electricity Act 4 of 2006, and are for new generation capacity of all forms of energy by independent power producers, including coal, biodiesel, sun, wind, water and waste. Only nuclear energy is excluded.  Despite the regulations promoting competitive pricing there are conflicts with the energy regulator, NERSA, which has established policies to promote new, clean energy technologies through preferential tariffs.

In contrast to the government regulations, which many feel will undermine renewable energy investments, positive moves are being made towards the adoption of feed-in tariffs for renewable energy.  Following from successful adoption in countries like Germany, feed-in tariffs have proven their position in encouraging investment in renewable.  This is largely due to the absence of involvement by tenders; therefore investment in renewables can come from any investor, who is paid by the national regulator.

Investors and government critics enveloped in ‘Afropessimism’ need to shift discourse away from asinine discussion about coal and ideas such as importing electricity from the world’s largest proposed dam projects in the Congo.  Focus must be on these feed-in tariffs and internal small scale private sector investment to tap into South Africa’s ample renewable reserves such as an 1000MW wind potential. 

However the ideals of sustainable development, decreed in the Constitution and ingrained in policy makers, must feature prominently in renewable policy and propositions.  The counter argument with many proposals such as electrical generation from wind farms is their minimal employment promotion as well as issues of land ownership and an equitable share of profits from electricity production.  These hurdles are not insurmountable they just require interdisciplinary and shrewd policy making that is able to eclipse current political disarray and appreciate the enormity of potential renewable can play in a future ‘green’ South Africa.