Transition to a Low-Carbon Future: Climate Change Green Paper Concerns in Nelson Mandela Bay

1. Submission for the National Climate Change Green PaperParliamentary Hearing16th March 2011From Nelson Mandela Bay Transition Network

2. Content • What is our Transition Network ? • Issues in the Climate Change Green Paper • Our Crucial concern is that the Framework is not properly based • Water implications in IRP 2010 and problems under CC • Agriculture threats and potential but minimal coordination • Energy as biggest polluter and potential for improvement • Cost of Nuclear versus PV panels • IRP2010scenarios • Human Health impacts on growth and development • Commerce and Manufacturing potential in ‘renewables’ • Other sectors • Waste management needs first a clear VISION • Roles and Responsibilities and Institutional Framework • Inputs and Resources Mobilisation - Technology • Conclusion

3. What is Transition Network ? • We are committed to planning and acting for a transition to a real low-carbon future with a locally resilient and responsible society in Nelson Mandela Bay through: • Awareness-raising about low-carbon, resilience paradigms • The creation of a platform for meaningful networking • Responsible lobbying government and various institutions. • Mobilizing community members towards change • Forming a steering committee responsible for the networking of specialized groups and projects relevant to the different aspects of Transition

4. Crucial issue is the GP Framework • Lack of a long term vision from the National Planning Commission that: - Gives a clear Post Carbon (PC) objective to inform and drive Government and the Civil Society understanding and action. • Articulates new growth and poverty eradication paradigms • Questions GDP as the over-riding indicator in dealing with human and environmental impacts • Is bottom up andpeople centred through Informed participation • Defines and explains the needed drastic changes that will cut through all sectors and demonstrate new ways to live • Recognises the need of a precautionary pro-active strategy in low carbon development to avoid incalculable costs of weak CC planning and actions.

5. Crucial issue = Framework • Defines a CC national fund sourced from direct carbon taxes • Recognise SA’s vulnerability (locally and globally) to its enormous carbon dependency • Recognise LOCALISATION of food, energy, water, employment a pillar of CC response • Recognise institutional context of mismanagement and weak implementation capacity • Recognises “market solution” such as Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Cap and Trade and new but unproven technologies such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) delaying tactics & dangerous distractions.

6. Crucial issue = Framework • There is NO Post Carbon vision with resulting : • Weak political will to drive real changes • Keeping only slightly modified Business As Usual to try to confront CC • Too little ambition (16% instead of at least 32% Renewable Energy in IRP2)) • Weak alignment & contradictions between sect oral policies • Weak enforcement strategies to enforce Polluter Pays Principle • Weak preparedness to face COP17 immense responsibility and real undertakings

7. Water • Major potential crisis issue • Unacceptable and unconstitutional to consider water a commodity, rather than a social right • We question mega projects in water transfer, desalinisation with large environmental impact, operational costs & power needs • Instead of local water harvesting and recycling in a true localisation spirit • Considering the future CC water contexts, we question DEA choice of scenario (and not the Low Carbon scenario) that requires much more water per Kwh produced

8. Water needs implications in IRP2010 Low Cost Scenario Balanced Low Carbon

9. Agriculture • A Post Carbon vision vital to inform decisions with: • FOOD SECURITY the central issue in the CCGP as it will be directly impacted by CC and the huge implications of reduced availability and soaring cost of carbon product inputs • LOCALISING food production will boost local nutrition and local markets offsetting lost high CO2 footprint miles markets • LINK R & D and knowledge between Farmers, Colleges and Trainers - import proven profitable technologies such as Brazil’s and others’ Conservation Agriculture and Bio fuels & feeds • INCREASE mixed, small scale and organic farming to • Decrease environmental impacts of monoculture with CA • Create rural employment, local markets and wealth and ‘responsibilise’ local producer, accountable to local clients • Secure communal land accordingly • Ban GMO [monopolies] that kill biodiversity and producer autonomy

10. Energy • Post carbon vision would more easily direct this sector’s decisions including: • REDUCING this sector’s massive GHG contributions while seeking out new opportunities. • LOCALISATION with decentralised energy production to become a major potential to: • Create local employment • Responsibilise producer, accountable to local clients • Reduce transmission losses and environment impacts • Better use natural local energy resources • Better service isolated areas • Stop monopolistic unaccountability and bias • Hence we refute [off-peak] “base load” as a fixed long term IRP2010 commitment

11. Energy • Medupe is effectively irreversible butKusile new power station is unacceptable and money should be used for Renewable Energy development. • We must support advanced suppliers of improved systems such as Oerlikon PV producers • We consider nuclear unacceptable because of: • Monopolistic flavour & unresolved waste management • Long lead times , and historic cost overruns, • Large cost and excessive construction footprint, • Inadequate security against occurrence of any environmental or [possible] CC related disasters even in supposedly stable environments.

12. Cost of Nuclear versus Photo-Voltaic Source: Via Climate Justice Now

13. IRP2 scenarios • POST CARBON scenario enforced in IRP2 as it is the minimum • requirement for adequately responding to CC and water • scarcity threats 32% 36% 12% 16% 48% 14%

14. Education and Information • Historic practice faces huge change. Few appreciate implications of massive cost escalation and declining carbon based inputs OR changing temperature and water supplies under CC. • Urgent initiatives needed to initiate and collate information to tackle CC and post carbon complications in energy, industry, agriculture and food production. • Curricula and systems in Schools, Colleges and Support Departments must be revised urgently to incorporate the dramatic likely problems and opportunities of CC. • University to become autonomous from funding sources to offer objective and broad developmental alternatives in post carbon paradigms to eager students.

15. Human Health • Post carbon vision would more clearly inform this sector’s choices and decisions • To Mitigate CC health impacts through a NHI funded by CC global fund • Potable water and Health service delivery cranked up and ready ahead of CC impacts

16. Commerce and Manufacturing • Post carbon vision would more effectively direct sector’s decisions including the initiatives that: • Polluters pay and GHG inventory be compulsory to adequately inform and direct emission decreases • Significant direct Co2 taxes be rapidly installed [or even closures of even the largest] with NO exceptions to quickly enforce changes for large GHG offenders (including Eskom, SASOL and BHPBilliton) • CO2 taxes income ring fenced for developing alternatives to the above polluters • Oerlikon Solar [Swiss PV producer] moved out of SA to Morocco and Turkey, we suspect because of lack of local political interest or support,

17. Other sectors • Post carbon vision would more easily inform decisions in the other sectors (such as Mining and Minerals, Tourism, Transport, Natural Resources, Human Society, Livelihoods in Urban , Rural, Coastal Areas) • Individual as well institutional CC RESILIENCE build up as well as related awareness/ education programmes should be considered the corner stones of a rapid and effective CC Disaster Risk Management strategy

18. Waste management • Current externalisation of waste costs to domestic consumers is unacceptable as the latter should be clearly attributed to the waste producers as the only way to force them to close or adapt to reusable or recyclable packing • land fill gas extraction is an afterthought and disincentive to the zero waste approach with re-use, composting and recycling principles

19. Roles and Responsibilities and Institutional Framework • Has a DOE sufficient influence to enforce the CC response implementation across all sectors. • We believe the NPC (that would have to articulate a PC vision), should be responsible for coordination and enforcement of a CC response policy across the whole Government and it would have greater influence with the Private Sector. • This Green Paper seems to be a “statement of intent” that lacks critical details, especially regarding obligations of CC role players. • A PC vision, once again would ease decisions on these details as it would clarify the field and set relevant benchmarks.

20. Inputs and Resources Mobilisation - Technology • A Post carbon vision together with the adequate political will would easily inform decisions related to Inputs and Resources Mobilisation and Technology • Investing as a precautionary [proactive] response to CC will be a mere fraction of the costs arising from inaction or too little action.

21. Conclusion • “It is argued that the early adoption of a low carbon growth path can create a competitive advantage for countries taking cognisance of the effects of climate change and environmental pollution.” • Hence the need of a post carbon vision that aligns and drives each and everyone.