On Global warming by Ian Cox

The special “summary for policy makers report that was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) in October 2018 (the “2018 SPM”) is notable for two things. Firstly, it sets out the conservative consensus scientific view of what the world must do if we are to limit the average increase in global temperatures since pre-industrial times to between 1.5°C. and 2°C. Secondly, the States, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait refused to welcome this report at the 24th conference of the parties (“COP”) that took place in Poland in December 2018. Consequently, the 2018 SPM report was only noted at COP 24. This means that the report cannot be adopted in terms of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change o r the UNFCCC. Thus it has no official status other than being a report of the IPCC.

This is significant because the UNFCCC convenes these meetings to enable , leaders from member countries to agree on what they must do to ensure that average global temperatures do not exceed the target set out in Paris Agreement. This allows an average increase of preferably less than 1.5°C but no more than 2°C. Blocking a report that says what must be done to achieve this suggests that key member countries are not yet committed to dealing effectively with global warming. It looks like politicians are more concerned about the optics than the issue. People in the climate change industry have tried to counter this impression by pointing out that only four countries refused to welcome the report.

They suggest that the adoption of emission rules for reducing emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and methane) is an important step forward. But the detail paints a different story. Countries that have committed to reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have done so on condition that the global rules for implementing and policing reductions in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are transparent and equitable Equitable rules must recognise that those few countries that are responsible for most of the world’s anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions should also pay for the clean-up. This is the ostensible purpose of the fund. It is meant to ensure that the financial burden of reducing global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are spread equitably between the major source of these emissions and other countries.

But the fund which aims to raise 100 billion USD is pitifully small. Germany recently committed 45 billion USD to redress the inequitable consequences of its own internal reduction strategy aimed at closing its coal fired power stations. But this fund has been criticised for being to small. The truth is that 100 billion USD is a pittance!It is thus very easy for member states to avoid their commitment to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions on the basis that the global scheme is underfunded and thus inherently unfair. But, it is not just the lack of funds that is a problem. The rules also make it easy for contributors to delay and even avoid making payment. A big part of the problem is that there is a strong inverse correlation between those countries responsibl e for most of th e worl d ’ s anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and those countries likely to be worst affected by global warming. Paradoxically, the major emitters of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are often the least affected its adverse affects. Africa yet again draws the short straw. It has contributed comparatively very little to global greenhouse gas emissions yet it and Southern Africa in particular, is being hardest hit by its adverse consequences.

It is thus very easy, even attractive, for wealthy countries to disown the problem on the basis that they will be able to manage the adverse impacts of global warming better than other countries. Trump's reference to "shithole countries" takes on a special relevance when viewed in this context. Current events seem to support the sense on gets that the real response to global warming will be a case of the survival of the fittest.

The USA, for example, has in addition to watering down the rules policing contributions to the fund, has also resolved to repudiate the Paris Agreement as soon as this is legally possible. This means that come 2020, one of the world's largest emitters of anthropogenic greenhouse gases will no longer be part of the global effort aimed at reducing these emissions. This is only the tip of the iceberg, UNFCCC member states are not in fact reducing their emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. These emissions are still increasing.

According to the estimates of the Global Carbon Project emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases increased by 2.7% last year. Worse still, the major emitters, who account for 70% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, are still responsible for most of this increase. China’s emissions are estimated to have increased by 4.7% in 2018, India by 6.7% and the US by 2.5%. Only Europe managed to keep its emissions static. In fact it seems that Europe is the only major emitter that is seriously committed to reducing its anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions But Europe started moving away from carbon-based energy generation several decades ago. Consequently, its emissions are already small relative to the size of its economy and population. Europe's reductions in its anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will not be enough not to significantly affect the current or future rise in average global temperatures.

This unfortunate reality begs two questions. Firstly, is this fair? Secondly, one may well ask; what is the point of a country whose contribution to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is relatively small trying to reduce its emissions if the big four emitters are not leading by example? Could efforts to reduce the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions of a country such as South actually leave it worse off than it would be if it concentrated its efforts on building its economy and the social. political and economic conditions necessary to successfully adapt to a changing climate?

After all, The reality is that no significant produces of anthropogenic greehouse gases outside Europe seem to have any appetite or indeed even the ability to reverse or even significantly reduce (mitigate) their own emissions.

This is despite the fact that carrying on as usual is not wise. The 2018 SPC reaffirmed its finding that planet has already warmed by about 1°C on average since pre-industrial times. It has expressed very high confidence that the rate of warming is accelerating and that average global temperatures will reach 1.5°C by 2055 if nothing is done to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. This increase is likely to reach 3°C on average by the end of the century if these emissions continue to increase.

The shocking news in the report was that we will only be able to halt the increase in average global temperatures at 1.5°C of if we start reducing emissions immediately and are able to reduce these emissions to zero by 2040.

This means that most commitments to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will be insufficient to ensure that average global temperatures are limited to 1.5°C. it is likely that current under-takings, will result in average global temperature increases exceeding 1.5°C by 2055 and 2°C by the end of the century, even on a best-case scenario.

This means that irreversible climate change is inevitable even if countries honour their present commitments to reduce emissions. But even this seems unlikely given what is happening on the ground.

Scientists no doubt hoped that the 2018 SPC would encourage the public and politicians to more concerted action . However, it seems that he opposite is proving to be the case. The truth is that it is very hard to persuade people to change, especially when this is contrary to their short-term interests. Sacrifices “for the greater good” are only palatable when someone else is doing the sacrificing. success is often only understood in relative terms. Thus being the least worse off can sometimes be seen as being preferable to fixing the underlying problem.

In these circumstances it may be more politic to pretend that what is happening is not real, to mind your own back yard and profit from any relative advantage one may enjoy while defending yourself against those who are less fortunate. President Trump’s disbelief that global warming is real is an obvious example of this appraoch playing out in real life. Likewise the idea that building a border wall will be an effective bulwark against upheavals golobal warming and other problems is causing in other countries. It sounds terrible but the truth is that this approach enjoys popular support in the USA . that far exceeds his approval ratings. I suspect that this is why he has been able to role back of environmental legislation that was decades in the making with very little public opposition. I also suggest that it is why the only the hard left of Democratic Party are pushing hard for global warming as to be central to its political agenda. It is may also explain the rising tide of nationalism around the world and why politicians are, in the main, talking more about global warming than taking immediate action to deal with it. Thus, South Africa's plan to increase coal production and to build more coal fired power stations is probably a truer reflection of the real sate of affairs than all the rhetoric from government one hears or reads about in the media.

However, I think It would be wrong to just blame government or politicians. They are after all a reflection of the mores and belief of societies they represent. Global warming needs to be seen as part of the larger process of change that is placing the global social order and balance of power under increasing stress.

A big part of that is the a growing anger at the increasingly inequitable global and personal distribution of wealth and opportunity. Just as poorer counties don't want to pay for the mess caused by wealthy ones, so it is that people are becoming increasingly angry about being required to pay for the costs of economic growth that has unfairly benefited a very small group of people. It is a shocking fact that the combined wealth of the world’s richest 26 people now exceeds the combined wealth of half the world’ s population. It is no small wonder that this bottom 50% or what economist Professor Guy Standing calls the "precariat" has become increasingly distrustful of government.

Efforts to deal with global warming are not immune to this anger, even in Europe. The recent protests against French president Macron’s proposed carbon tax on fuel gives one a sense of this underlying anger and the belief that measures intended to mitigate anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are inherently unfair. Increasing distrust in government makes it increasingly difficult for democratic governments to provide the leadership that is necessary. Leaders are increasing bound by the dictates of public opinion, no matter how misinformed this may be. The result is that it would be probably be political suicide for any leader to embrace the findings of the IPCC contained in the 2018 SPC.

Imagine, for example, what would happen if South Africa reduced its net anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2055. This would entail halting all coal mining and fossil fuel exploration as well as closing all coal fired power stations over that period. Furthermore we would need to shift the bulk of the county’s transport infrastructure to electric power over the same period .

Scientists may correctly advise that this is what we must do, but the reality is it cannot be done. Our already fragile economy would collapse overnight. Famine and anarchy would quickly follow. Many people would die.

The fact is that we are hugely reliant on coal and oil and will remain so for the foreseeable future. The cure in this case is perceived to be far worse than the disease. This is no doubt why our commitment to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions provide for an increase in these emissions over the next 25 or so years. It is only then that emissions will stabilise and thereafter begin to reduce. We are not alone in setting modest reduction targets which is doubtless one of the reasons why global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are increasing.

It is surprising then, given this reality, that government policy continues to focus on reduction is at best a long term strategy. TI suggest that South Africa would be far better served in the short to medium term if government focused its attention and resources in enabling South Africans to predict the consequences of global warming in Southern Africa and in taking steps to best adapt to the resultant change in climate. After all, these changes are, already happening and will become increasingly significant. The importance of making adaptation our number one priority is dealing with global warming is underscored by the awful fact that southern Africa falls withi n a s o called climat e chang e hotspot . Temperatures in Southern Africa have already increased at double the global average and are projected to increase a further 1.5 times the global average by the end of the century.

This means that average increases of around 2°C have already happened. Average increases of 3°C are likely by 2055 and between 5°C and 6°C by the end of the century. This constitutes a clear and present danger to the health and wellbeing of present and future generations of people living in Southern Africa.

This is not mere speculation. We can already see the effect of global warming induced climate change in the shift in weather fronts southwards and the consequent drying up of the western and central parts of the country. This is already impacting on agriculture especially in the fruit growing areas of the Western Cape and in the western part of the maize belt.

Trout anglers will have noted these impacts on the nation’s trout waters. These are already smaller than they were. Moreover the anecdotal experience of flyfishers suggests that a significant portion of our present trout waters are becoming increasingly marginal.

The detailed research still needs to be done but an increase in temperature of another 1°C or so by 2050 will probably wipe out large parts of our existing trout waters, especially in the Western Cape. The fishery will almost certainly be wiped out by the end of the century if temperatures increase a s predicted.

The South African Government is aware of this threat South Africa faces. Indeed, its chief negotiator said as much in an TV interview with the SABC in December last year. However, our actions do not presently match our assessment of the risk. South Africa response to global warming is heavily reliant on significant international financial aid as well as the world adopting an effective mitigation strategy. South Africa’s negotiating team pushed hard on both issues at COP24. But as I have already pointed out they came away with little or none of the international commitments this strategy needs in order to succeed.

Strangely South Africa continues to pursue a mitigation based global warming strategy. A Carbon Tax Bill is presently before Parliament and is being pushed by government despite the fact it will have very little if any impact, reducing temperatures globally or in this country. It is, however, likely to cause our inflation rate to increase by at least 2%. To make matters worse, it is likely that ESKOM will be exempt from this tax despite being by far the largest emitter of greenhouse gases It follows that once again adverse consequences will be felt most by the poor, the middle class and private enterprise This is likely to severely retard economic growth and development.

The Climate Change Bill that was published for comment in 2108 is much worse. Disingenuously described as framework law it in fact uses the threat of global warming transfer legislative power to the executive in contravention of the doctrine of separation of powers. If this this Bill becomes law it will increase government’s control over the access to and use of natural resources and the economy. South Africans will lose their political voice as the legislature will be left powerless. Democratic participatory government will be replaced with a powerful executive answerable only to itself. This is a system that encourages corruption as well as stupid and oppressive government.

The low to no mitigation trajectory that government has adopted means that we will face rapid environmental change. This process of rapid change is going to be painful and not just in South Africa. We are likely to see mass migrations of people along with an increase in armed conflict and human suffering. Famine will once again become a serious problem. Bad policy and law making will make this much worse. It will significantly add to what will already be high levels of instability in the Southern African region. Good policy and laws that address real issues and make the lives of South African better will have the opposite effect. Sadly there is no indication at this time that the South African government has any appetite for good law making.

This sort of disaster is not new. South Africa experienced this sort of upheaval during the Mfecane that took place some two hundred years ago. It ravaged the country, decimating its population and opened the door to the settler and colonial expansions that created the country we know today.

The impacts of global warming on South Africa are going to be much more severe that the climatic events that triggered the Mfecane. However, our future need not be as dire. A great deal of research has been done in South Africa about what the country will look like look like climatically in 10, 30 or 100 years from now. We also have detailed research on the likely impacts of these changes on agriculture and in varying degrees on South Africa’s nine ecological regions. Research is also been done on crops which we can grow under these conditions. So, we are not moving into the future completely blind. We have the basic material to develop effective adaptation strategies.

The Department of Environmental Affairs (“DEA” ) ha s even published a draft adaptation strategy for comment. Unfortunately, this strategy is largely aspirational. There is no indication that government is going to create the conditions necessary to make implementation is possible. It is more likely that, just as government frustrated attempts to increase clean energy generation in South Africa, so it will also frustrate attempts to adapt to the consequences global warming.

The current trajectory of government policy and law making suggest that narrow ideological concerns and the need to exercise control are more important to government than enabling South Africans to adapt to the consequences of global warming. But , as I have already indicated, it need not be this way. South Africa has the knowledge and the resources to overcome this challenge. The question is whether we have the will to take up that challenge or are we going to continue to be a nation where the country’s future is sacrificed in pursuit of corrupt ideologies and individual wealth? I leave that question for the reader to decide.