Hon Chairperson, hon members, I would like, at the beginning of this important debate - which is a debate that is preparing us for participation in Indonesia on the Kyoto Protocol - to dedicate my speech to Dr Ian Player, one of the strongest environmentalists that we have in the country. He is an environmentalist of note in the world who turns 80 today: Happy birthday to Dr Ian Player. [Applause.]
I had invited him to be in the House when we debate the Kyoto Protocol, something that is very close to his heart, but unfortunately his international duties could not allow for that.
In recent months the climate has changed on the topic of climate change. The climate has changed on climate change. All those people who were in denial that there is climate change now understand that there is climate change. You don't have to be educated to understand that. You don't have to be sophisticated to understand that. When winter comes in summer and summer in autumn, it tells you that there is something wrong. But all this that I am saying is caused by man and can be reversed by man or by human beings, to be gender sensitive. [Interjections.] I didn't say by a man, I said by man, which is a human being.
How do we correct that? Last week during the International Women's Day celebrations in Spain, the first speaker to address that international conference was an environmentalist from Africa, a woman, Wangari Mathai. She set the tone for that international conference, but unless and until we take the environment seriously, we can have nobody else to blame, but ourselves. The worry is: What about the generations to come? We know that we are polluting today, but the consequences are going to be suffered years later by innocent people who are not the polluters today.
At this point, I just want to congratulate one member of this House who has a formula that comes from the experts, and who tells us how much you pollute the air every time you fly between Johannesburg and Cape Town. For you to offset that carbon you need to plant one tree. He has gone to look at the cost of the trees at Trees for Africa and every time he flies, he plants a tree. That member is the hon Lance Greyling. [Applause.]
We hon members who are forever flying, we are the culprits as well. I have been speaking to Trees for Africa to communicate with each one of you through your constituencies and assist you in planting trees. Because if we plant trees, half the problem of the world shall have been attended to. We are all dedicating our efforts today to say that even if South Africa, in terms of the Kyoto Protocol, is not listed as a polluter compared to the big giants like the US, we still have to take care of the environment.
Indeed, the climate has changed on climate change, starting especially with the Stern report released late last year; the issue of climate change has suddenly appeared brightly on the political radar, perhaps for the first time because the impacts were starkly portrayed in economic terms by an economist Sir Nicholas Stern, being a former Chief Economist at the World Bank. This has nothing to do with the Network on the World Bank that is here today.
Following closely, was the release of the Fourth Report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, which, in contrast to its predecessors' very conservative approach, has taken a bold stand on the urgency of the need rapidly to take action. Make no mistake, this eminent, scientific panel of the world's foremost climate scientists is not given to alarmism and does not make statements or take facts lightly. Their findings are based on the very best research results from the world's best climate scientists and institutions. But even they have now considered that all previous estimates of both the extent of global warming, as well as the rate at which it is happening and will happen, have been grossly underestimated and we are now entering the exponential part of the curve.
This is in fact a clarion call, a Mayday warning that we are no longer talking about global warming, but we are talking about global heating. And I don't think there is a member who will dispute that. We are no longer talking about global warming, but global heating.
To date politicians largely, heavily influenced by the pro-carbon lobby, have been content to look at the best-case scenarios and pay lip service to any remedial action. That includes us. Worst-case scenarios have been summarily dismissed as scaremongering by environmental groups. However, if we look back 17 years to 1990 when the need for a Kyoto-type initiative was first mooted, it is apparent that almost every box in the worst-case scenario has now been checked.
Whilst Kyoto was a great first step in the right direction in itself, it will achieve nothing unless it is used as a template for more serious agreements and a springboard to them. What does this mean for South Africa? We are in a classic catch-22 here. An ageing infrastructure which must contend with massive increasing demands to meet socioeconomic imperatives; an arguably the cheapest electricity in the world, but also some 87% of our power comes from coal-fired power stations and we are a per capita amongst the highest emitters of carbon dioxide and thus contributors to climate change in the world.
As a developing country, as I said earlier, South Africa is not yet subject to emission reduction targets, but in the post-Kyoto negotiations these are a certainty. Together with an emissions penalty of some sort, simply put, we will very soon see the real costs of our carbon-intensive power generating heating homes and it is going to become very uncomfortable. For some it is already uncomfortable, eating heavily into our economic growth projections, unless we take the opportunity to change.
As a country we have yet to seriously invest in new and renewable energy technologies and options and some effort has been noted in this direction. For example, with our climate solar energy in all forms is a clear frontrunner, in particular, for solar water heating, the biggest energy user in domestic households; this requires a courageous and aggressive approach to changing building practices.
If we do not take these opportunities now, which offer massive openings for international investment, new business, job creation and reduction in energy costs in the long term, we will have them forced on us by the global communities. We do not want anything forced on us, because, as South Africa, much as we were a young democracy when Kyoto was introduced, we did what was expected of us as a nation and we ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
We tried by all means even to talk to the big giants in the world to ask them to come to the table. It has been difficult, but Kyoto is now in operation and it can only be us who assist. And why I am participating in this debate is because the environment is my love and my home. And I know very well that, as I urge hon members to join me, I did promise Wangari Mathai that, she must just watch this space, South Africans are going to plant more trees. I think that with the committed hon members of this House that I know, led by Ubaba Gatsha Buthelezi, we will plant trees.
I know very well that we will plant trees and we can be a proud, shining nation saying to everyone that we care about the environment, not because we care about ourselves, but we care about generations to come; those innocent children that will be coming into a messy world because of us. Let us clean up so that they can come and live in a clean environment. Thank you. [Applause.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Order! Are you rising on a point of order, hon member?
Yes, Madam Chairperson. The Deputy Speaker may not have meant anything bad, but I would earnestly request that she doesn't use the name she used to refer to the leader of the IFP. Owing to historical circumstances, I would request that she withdraws that name.
Madam Chairperson, I would withdraw that name, but the sentiment is something that will be carried because I know that he cares for the environment. I have had a discussion with him about three months ago in Mombasa on the same topic and that is why I accord him the respect that he deserves. But I take the point. [Applause.]
Madam House Chair, hon members, climate change poses a large and unfamiliar challenge to the world. The UK chief scientific advisor, David King, has said that climate change is the most severe problem that we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism.
At their July 2005 meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland, G8 leaders issued a statement acknowledging that climate change is a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the globe. And former US President Bill Clinton has warned that the climate change is the only problem that has the power to end the march of civilization as we know it.
Hon members, while we as legislators face many problems that require serious and urgent attention in South Africa, most notably poverty, HIV/Aids and crime, it is time that we wake up to our country's contribution to climate change and the likely effects that it will have on our country and our continent over the coming century.
The most recent report Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published on 2 February 2007, concludes that it is now 90% certain that human activities in 1750 have warmed our planet. There are, however, still sceptics that doubt the science behind this report. There are critics that claim that climate change proponents are anti-growth. But opponents must now tell us, if it is not the reasons in the IPCC report that climate changes are human-induced what is causing it? As Senator Kerry told the meeting of legislators from the G8+5 in Washington last month:
If we are wrong about climate change, what is the worst that can happen? We will have better technology, improved energy security, reduced certification of the oceans and cleaner air. What is the worse that can happen if the sceptics are wrong?
Hon members, the precautionary principle must prevail, or to use the creed of doctors, we should do no harm.
Concern is growing that our communities in ecosystems will have little time to adjust to the changing conditions. Economic losses due to extreme weather events are already being experienced and are likely to increase in the future. The World Health Organisation estimates that climate change is already responsible for 150 000 deaths annually. It is the developing world that is expected to endure the worst effects of climate change. Indeed, much of the work of this House in developing legislation that seeks to eradicate poverty is likely to be eroded by the effects of climate change if we do not act.
As legislators, none of us has the luxury of standing by. Indifference by this House will only accentuate the problem. There is a growing consensus among legislators around the world - the Deputy Speaker has alluded to this - particularly in the G8 countries. In our window of opportunity, which is a short one, we will need to act. If the likes of Senator Kerry and Senator Boxer, both Democrats, are to be believed then even the US legislators are moving, albeit slowly, to respond to climate change. We as South African legislators must not be caught unawares though. As the Kyoto Protocol approaches 2012, the year in which it will expire in its current form, countries like India, China, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa will be expected to sign up for commitments, whatever they may be.
Hon members, we will need to embrace this challenge. According to the Stern report of October 2006, the cost of inaction will be greater than the cost of action. However, both the developed and the developing world will need to come to the table under the right conditions. As the legislators at the G8+5 climate dialogue noted last month: ... action on climate change needs to take into account the differing circumstances of the developed, developing and poor economies, recognising the need for economic growth and access to energy to alleviate poverty.
Action must be taken by countries in line with their capabilities and historic responsibilities.
It is now time to start plotting the way forward. The Kyoto Protocol leading up to 2012 will need to be renegotiated. The market approach must remain a key component although we must accept its limitations. This time around we cannot just rely on emissions trading. We will need to go further. Eileen Claussen of the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change recommends five principles on which a future climate framework must be negotiated. Firstly, it must be agreed that we need to find long-term ambitious goals. Secondly, developed countries must take the lead. Thirdly, there can be no solution, due to the global nature of the problem, without the participation of developing countries. Fourthly, incentives need to be established for the developing world, and lastly, and arguably most importantly, there needs to be a fully functioning carbon market that includes a price for carbon.
It is likely that the upcoming G8 presidency, under Chancellor Merkel, will attempt to seek a long-term goal to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. This goal will probably be somewhere between 450 and 550 parts per million of CO2. Following that, the plan on how to reach this goal will need to be thrashed out.
Hon members, there are a number of issues that we, in South Africa, will need to address urgently if we are to make our contribution to preventing a climate disaster. It will require new investments, both in the public and private sectors, and in some cases we as legislators will need to create the legislative framework and the incentives to act.
It is likely that coal will remain the dominant source of energy in South Africa for decades to come. But its contribution to electricity generation, currently around 90%, has to be reduced. It is an indictment on this country that renewable energy contributes a negligible proportion on our energy mix. Eskom has yet to move beyond a few renewable energy demonstration models. Poor energy planning over the past decade has meant that under an impending energy crunch in this country, Eskom has once again resorted to taking coal power stations out of mothballs and is likely to continue building new coal stations. In this state of affairs, renewable energy is constantly put on the back burner. This situation simply has to change.
If energy from coal is to remain on our agenda for the foreseeable future, then it would be necessary for us to induce producers into using best practice technology that will provide for cleaner coal. Carbon capture and storage need to be high on the agenda. The IPCC estimated that in 2005 carbon capture and storage can contribute between 15% and 55% of the cumulative mitigation effort worldwide until 2010.
A home-grown company, Anglo American plc, is in fact a world leader in this field. However, it is developing this technology in Australia and not in South Africa. Why? Because Australia has done more to produce a carbon capture and storage regulatory regime. Therefore, South Africa will need to move to provide the funding for a national storage map and will need to introduce the necessary legislation and incentives to attract the likes of Anglo American into the South African market.
Perhaps the area of intervention that South Africa can respond to most quickly is energy efficiency, the most cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The International Energy Agency estimates that worldwide energy efficiency improvements alone can reduce the world's energy demand in 2050 by an amount equivalent to almost half of today's energy consumption. We, as legislators, need to look at initiatives like strict standards for standby time for appliances and fuel efficiency in the transport sector in order to realise efficiency gains.
Mandatory energy efficiency labelling of all machines and appliances must be fast-tracked.
Lastly, with regarding to promoting energy efficiency as well as energy conservation, there is a need for a massive public education programme in this country. Households, individuals and businesses need to have an understanding of what their respective carbon footprints are in order to even begin the process of reducing these footprints.
There is much work ahead. With sensible legislation and regulations we can use the response to climate change to encourage new investments and to create new markets. But let us always be mindful of the narrow window of opportunity in which we need to act.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I certainly support the initiative of offsetting our emissions from flying and I will support you on that.
Climate change is not just an environmental issue; it is an international security issue, a jobs issue and an issue important to our children and grandchildren. It's time to take it seriously. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon member, I will convey your sentiments to the Deputy Speaker.
Madam Chair, colleagues, the world, including the economic, political and social situation, is constantly changing and will continue to change at an even faster pace in years to come. It is our ability to adapt to these changing circumstances that will determine how successful we are.
In the ten years since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, much has changed with regard to these situations around the world. Globalisation seems to have made the world a much smaller place; competition for resources and customers has intensified and is no longer confined to the boundaries of a particular country.
Climate change and global warming are realities that affect us directly and we are starting to experience their effects at first hand. Unusual or erratic weather conditions, flooding and extreme heat are just some of the warning signs that we must heed. If we continue our current development trends with little or no consideration for the environment and without a significant reduction in greenhouse emissions, then we will eventually suffer the consequences.
The Kyoto Protocol, which aims at curbing the air pollution that is blamed for global warming, came into effect seven years after it was agreed. It required countries to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Although some industrial countries are making progress in decreasing the emissions of their greenhouse gases, many are not, and the progress that has been made has been slow. Some countries fear that by implementing strict targets for pollution and gas emissions they will be sacrificing profits and slowing down economic development. It is also very unfortunate that some industrialized nations, particularly the USA, are not committed to the Kyoto Protocol.
Although the industrialized nations are primarily responsible for the carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere, developing countries also have a role to play in managing the situation. By actively trying to curb our greenhouse gas emissions as well as educating and informing the public about climate change and global warming, we can make a difference.
Madam Chair, although we can be proud of the progress and the many economic, political and social developments that have been made globally over the past ten years, it is unfortunate that we have not achieved a similar rate of progress with regard to finding lasting and globally accepted plans and solutions to fight global warming and climate change.
Economic and political developments are very important, but they should not be achieved in isolation with little or no regard for the environment. We are running out of time in our quest to address our environmental problems. We need to start taking these problems more seriously and paying more attention to them if we want to make a meaningful difference. Our efforts in addressing environmental issues have been slow since the Kyoto Protocol was signed ten years ago. We need to speed up this progress.
Madam Chair and hon members, the scientific evidence for global warming and its effects continue to mount. It is an unfortunate fact that outside of the scientific community, in the mainstream media and in politics especially, there are still those who want to present global warming as just one theory, or even completely dismissing it. This sort of thinking is driven by the short-term and narrow-minded obsession with the pursuit of consumption of resources and energy.
What the world attempted at Kyoto is to acknowledge the long-term consequences of emissions and thus pursue a path of sustainable development. Unfortunately, from the outset, Kyoto was dogged by the disappointment that the biggest polluter, the United States, would not submit to the global long-term view, and chose instead its narrow self- interest.
The emissions debate has further been set back by the preposterousness of trading emissions. On paper, the idea seemed good, but in practice it does not discourage emissions pollution, and only ensures that the pollution ghettos will eventually develop as the rich and developed ``export'' their pollution. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, comrades and colleagues, two hundred years since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the biosphere and the human civilisation that has evolved from it is at an abyss. Whilst industrial civilisation has brought about unimaginable human advances and comforts, it is clear that these have been begotten at a price that threatens the very existence of life on our planet.
It is instructive, if not ironic, that on the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the authoritative world scientific body on the study of climate change drew two fundamental conclusions in its February report this year. It said that:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air ...
Furthermore, the report goes on to say:
Eleven of the last twelve years - 1995 to 2006 - rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature.
In a section subtitled ``Understanding and attributing climate change'', the report notes that:
Most of the observed increases in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century are very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
In other words, it is human-made.
The Stern Review of the esteemed economist Sir Nicholas Stern, released in October last year, counsels that doing nothing about climate change could cost us about 5% to 20% of global gross domestic product. Already the heat wave in 2003 in Europe, which killed 35 000 people, resulted in US$15 billion losses in European agriculture.
Climate change is a term that is used to describe the warming and cooling of the climate. It is a process that can take place naturally, like the cooling that took place in the Ice Age. Global warming is a particular variant of climate change, which refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans, which have been noticed in past decades.
As a result of global warming, there are distinguishable environmental consequences. These include the melting of glaciers, the increasing frequency of floods, a rise in sea levels, increasing occurrence of droughts, scarcity of water, the loss of biodiversity, which takes the form of forest diebacks, and the extinction of some plant and animal species as well as the regularity and severity of weather events such as heat waves and hurricanes.
In an absorbing presentation on the economics of climate change, Sir Nicholas Stern, two days ago here in Cape Town, made the point that as early as 200 years ago, the French mathematician, Fourier, noticed that human activities were having an impact on the environment, which impact was the overall increase of the temperature levels.
Despite these early observations, there have been a number of dismissals of the scientific nature of the claim that there is global warming. The impact of this denial has been to undermine appropriate responses to this challenge.
Since 1987, in Montreal, there have been a number of international agreements and mechanisms which the global community has entered into as part of its response to the challenge of climate change. The Montreal Protocol focused on the detection and management of ozone-depleting substances. In 1989, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established, whose brief is the scientific assessment of climate change, as well as elaborating the best responses to the problem.
In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established as the international framework to agree on strategies to stabilise the emission of greenhouse gases.
The Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997 and came into effect on 16 February 2005. Its import is in the fact that it is a legally binding international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. The second fundamental dimension of the Kyoto Protocol is the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. At the heart of this principle is an attempt to address the fact that not only are the developed countries the most polluting countries, but they are also the ones that have mainly been responsible for global warming. It is therefore these countries that must mostly reduce their gas emissions.
Secondly, the principle seeks to address the fact that developing countries will have to emit greenhouse gases as part of their developing challenge, and therefore, the reduction that the developed countries make should be of such a nature as to give space for the developing countries to develop, within a broad framework of overall reduction of global warming.
Central to the management of global warming has been a global effort to find solutions to the rise in temperatures. We have the strategies that seek to address the fact that this phenomenon is already with us, and is already threatening life systems and livelihoods. How then should the nations of the world adapt to it? How do you address the fact that, as a result of global warming, fish stocks are leaving Saldanha and going to Chile; that hurricanes are destroying cities, and floods are impoverishing Third World villagers who are least able to defend and protect themselves.
The difficult problem of adaptation is that it is essentially a Third World issue and therefore does not have the same profile as the mitigation issues.
Despite this, we welcome and support the establishment of the Least Developed Countries Fund as well as the Special Climate Change Fund, both of which are under the United Nations Framework on Climate Change.
Another initiative worthy of support is one that is based on taxing the volumes of transactions derived from the clean development mechanism, which presages the evolution of a global tax, and dovetails well with the call for a 2% adaptation levy on all flexible mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol.
Adaptation is the prevention and reduction of activities that induce climate change, referred to as the mitigation interventions, and is about the use of clean technologies. The first point to be made in this regard is that some of these technologies already exist, and the challenge is their access and diffusion to the world at large.
The Global Legislatures for a Balanced Environment, Globe, technology working group, whose thesis we discussed in Washington last month, identified the challenge of mitigation in the following ways:
We propose to focus on five main areas:
First, what scope already exists for deploying available clean technologies globally?
Second, barriers to investing in low carbon and carbon-free technologies in developed and developing countries with examples on how these might be overcome.
Third, policies, emission trends and technology needs of developing economies and economies in transition, and how these relate to decision-making processes in the economic models, including synergies and trade-offs between climate change and other priorities such as job creation and industrial development.
Fourth, how to combine regulatory approaches that can push and market approaches that can `pull' technology solutions in the most effective ways, able to bring about the range and extent of change needed to develop and deploy clean and more efficient technologies.
Fifth, how the transfer of efficient low-carbon technologies can be promoted, and what roles international institutions should play in this process, with a special focus on how private-public partnerships might act as catalysts in demonstrating scope here.
In essence, the challenge is to ensure access to and comprehensive dissemination of clean technologies across the world, and to ensure that these technologies can talk to both the challenge of industrial development without the risk of maximising global warming.
The challenge of managing climate change is not just a technological and economic one; it is also political. Whilst many of the world's leading economies are signatories to the UNFCC, important players such as the United States of America and Australia are not significant to the Kyoto Protocol. Therefore, they have recused themselves from the legally binding commitments of addressing this challenge.
The US is the leading polluter of the world. There can be no solution to this problem without her playing a central role. It is in this regard that recent acknowledgement of the challenge of global warming in the state of the union address by President Bush is to be welcomed.
The Kyoto Protocol comes to an end in 2012. At this stage, there has not been an appropriate forum and the goodwill to launch negotiations on a post- Kyoto agreement. One of the knots to be undone is the fact that some of the developing countries are increasingly emitting higher levels of greenhouse gases, and are now being pressurised to reduce their emissions. This is the case with China, India and ourselves. This goes against the principle of common but differentiated responsibility.
The second challenge would be to bring the US into the post-Kyoto framework. Thirdly, the global community will have to address the competing claims by polluting developed countries, which refuse to commit themselves to clean development as long as developing countries are still emitting. Together, we will have to find a solution to these challenges.
In the light of these challenges, it is difficult to find fault with the stance of our government. As this Parliament, we need to be united in supporting the government in its endeavour to take action on adaptation, in its promotion of clean development mechanisms in Africa and its fight for new thinking on technological transfer as well as the pursuit of a more effective global regime after 2012.
I think I should take this opportunity to inform the House that the environment and tourism committee is planning this year to take a trip to Australia to look at the carbon capture and storage facilities of Anglo- American, which is the leading company that is looking at clean development, and moving to ``a cleaner image''.
As the ANC, we would like to express our appreciation to the Interparliamentary Union for drawing our attention to this issue, so that we, as the nation in assembly, can profile what is one of the urgent challenges that we face - the sustainable reproduction of life on our planet. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, I would like to dedicate this speech today to my six-year-old nephew, Matteo Greyling, and everyone of his generation who will have to deal with the effects of our decisions and actions on this important issue.
Climate change is one of the greatest symbols of inequality in the world, because it is the actions, both past and present, of affluent countries and people that are having a catastrophic impact on the lives of the poor and future generations. We have to secure a post-Kyoto international agreement that would include the mission targets for the world's worst polluters. We only have a few years to breach the current international divide on this issue, if we are to prevent destabilising climate change.
The ID supports some of the progressive work that South Africa has done on the international level to achieve this objective. Back home, however, we can and must do far more to live up to our own responsibility as the 14th biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. Let's stop the rhetoric and talk about real action.
Yesterday the minerals and energy committee, across parties, expressed its collective dismay that the renewable energy sector receives a paltry sum of money, and that we do not have a bold vision for this growing global market. We can lead the world in renewable energy, particularly solar, but it requires government to truly put its money where its mouth is.
Why is Germany building a factory to produce our cutting edge solar panel technology? Why are we not giving substantial tax breaks and subsidies for renewable technology? And why, as Minister Erwin stated yesterday, are we continuing to subsidise the energy costs of hugely energy-intensive companies in South Africa? Why have we stalled the integrated energy planning process and allowed Eskom to simply build five new coal-fired power stations without any thought about how that will push up our emissions? This is old "business as usual" thinking, and what we need is innovative solutions and the belief that we can lead the world in a more sustainable future.
Finally, I believe that we, as MPs, must take personal action, and I congratulate the Deputy Speaker for taking up my plea to make Parliament carbon-neutral by planting trees. As MPs we should also buy trees and do energy audits on our houses to see how we can reduce our own carbon emissions. I have done that and am starting to implement some of those recommendations. I thank you. [Time expired.]
Chairperson, in a recent article Forian Dlamini stated that climate change holds a more serious threat to peace and stability in Africa than political conflicts since the advent of independence. The ACDP agrees that recurring floods in Mozambique and drought in most Southern African states are visible signs of climate change and undoubtedly present a serious threat to peace and stability.
South Africa is very vulnerable to global warming and its consequences, such as rising sea levels, droughts, loss of biodiversity, high incidence of malaria and other tropical diseases, and increased water scarcity.
Regrettably, we are also one of the world's most energy-intensive economies, with very high greenhouse gas emissions. We must be good stewards of our environment, for the sake of our future generations. What we need is tangible commitment to action now, not later. As citizens we need to choose products and services that are energy-efficient and encourage business and government to do the same.
Whilst I haven't planted trees as yet, I trust that Madam Deputy Speaker appreciates the colour of my tie as a sign of support for her concern and for hon Greyling's initiative. I thank you.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Thank you, hon Swart. Let me see your tie. [Laughter.]
Madam Chair, Comrades and colleagues, an amazing film entitled An Inconvenient Truth has been circling the globe. Narrated by Al Gore, it sets out in vivid terms the crisis our planet is facing as global warming escalates on an unprecedented scale. I wish, Madam Chair, that we could show the film here in Parliament for all our members to become better informed on this critical situation.
The most inconvenient truth about global warming is that we cannot stop it. Mitigate it, yes; adapt to its consequences, yes, but clearly global warming is already baked into the earth's future.
It has, in fact, been around a long time, and environmentalists and lawmakers have spent years shouting at one another about whether the grim forecasts are true. But in the past five years or so the debate has quietly ended. Global warming, even the sceptics now agree, is the real deal, and human activity has been courting it.
We thought, however, that time was on our side and that we would have at least decades to sort it out. Clearly, this is no longer the case. Once things start to go wrong, change can happen surprisingly quickly. What few people reckoned on was that global climate systems are booby-trapped, with tipping points and feedback loops.
The slow creep of environmental decay can suddenly give way to self- perpetuating collapse. If you pump enough carbon dioxide into the sky, that last part per million of greenhouse gas behaves like the 100?C that turns a pot of hot water into boiling water and steam. Carbon dioxide is a tiny, but very important, component of our earth's atmosphere. It helps warm the earth to the levels we are used to, but too much of it - and maybe the result of our use of fossil fuels and other C02 emissions - does a huge damage as it prevents sunlight from escaping form our atmosphere.
And what happens then? Put bluntly, the temperature of the earth rises. The intergovernmental panel on climate change predicts that by 2100 temperatures will have risen by between 1,1? and 6,4?, and as a result sea levels will rise by 18cm to 59cm. And now, in 2007, this is well on the way to happening.
In particular, damage is being caused to our polar caps, the reason being that the white surface of the polar ice is so bright that it reflects back 90% of sunlight into space. But, as the ice melts and shrinks and water takes its place, it absorbs the sunlight and becomes warmer, melting more and more of the coastal polar ice.
In Greenland the rate at which ice has been steadily melting and dripping into the sea has changed, and now whole glaciers are being dumped into the ocean. By some estimates the entire Greenland ice sheet, if melted, would be enough to raise global sea levels by seven metres, swallowing up large parts of coastal Florida and most of Bangladesh.
The Antarctic holds enough ice to raise sea levels more than 65 metres. Well, I don't need to expand on what that would do to our South African coastline.
So, Madam Chair, how is the heating up of our planet affecting, disrupting and destroying the biological world we inhabit, and the creatures we depend on for survival?
The naturalist and explorer John Muir once said that when one tugs at a single thing in nature, one finds that it is attached to the rest of the world. Never a truer word was spoken.
In South Africa we are extremely fortunate because the huge challenge of escalating global warming has resulted in an even greater concentration of scientific work. An intellectual focus is being dedicated to studying what is happening. I am indebted to Leonie Joubert for her extremely informative books scoured for some of the facts in my speech. All over the world biodiversity is being affected on a daily basis by changes in our climate. In South Africa, as conditions warm up, species are expected to move higher or eastward.
Our warming and drying is expected to sweep in from the north-west. Those of you in the Northern Cape and the Western Cape have reason to be especially worried.
The largest slice of bio or plant species will occur in the western, central and northern parts of the country. Concern is already being voiced about the survival of some of our fynbos species in the Western Cape.
Most of today's plants and animals have evolved under global temperatures of about 3?C to 5?C cooler than the period in which we currently live. And now conditions are changing faster than most species will be able to adapt.
Changes are happening all around us all the time. As humans, we don't see slow change, so we come to think of the present as normal. But a comparison with the distant past, 20 years or more, will show just how much places have changed. And many of these species shifts have been documented internationally. In the UK 51 species of butterfly have moved to higher altitudes or northwards. Fishermen in the UK are encountering strange fish in their nets as the sea currents shift and warm up. The Worldwide Fund for Nature reports that a 1?C rise in temperature has pushed certain fish species, such as haddock and cod, 200 miles to 400 miles north.
In Antarctica penguin species are declining in the North, yet thriving in the South. And in the Arctic the sea ice is melting, depriving polar bears of their hunting ground, and without it they starve or drown.
Plants are moving, and this is amazing. Our pine plants are urging uphill, crowding out rare species near mountain suburbs. And our Southern African quiver trees are dying in the North and thriving in the South.
Way down in the southern oceans we possess two small volcanic islands. The larger, Marion Island, has always been a weather sentinel for this country. The other messages of global warming are coming through loud and clear. Scientist Dr Steven Chung first visited Marion Island in 1983, and I quote: "When I first went there it had a glacier, South Africa's only glacier. Now we no longer have a glacier."
Africa's most famous snow-capped peak, Mount Kilimanjaro, will soon have no more ice, no more snow. This icon, bold as the continent on which it rests, will have disappeared. All over the world ice caps and glaciers are melting and disappearing. The annual sorely needed run-off of water from these formerly huge reserves of life-giving water is diminishing, and the knock- on effects of this are being recorded and noted with great anxiety. Here in South Africa the predicted warming and drying will cause the desert to move South. We, human beings, are part of the greatest system of biodiversity. And how will this affect us?
Changes will occur in land cover, and our biodiversity will come under increased pressure. Inevitably, this will have a knock-on effect on our food security.
And here I would really like to make a plea to our Department of Agriculture to consider very seriously before switching large tracts of food-producing land over to the production of biofuels. I think particularly here of the use of maize.
We can ill afford to shrink our production of one of the most basic food items that is heavily relied on by so many, particularly in our rural communities. In addition, it should be remembered that a large amount of energy is required to produce biofuels, and they are certainly not carbon- neutral.
I would hope that more research could go into the production of biogas, which I understand is a far more environmentally friendly process. Global warming is starting to take its toll on human health. So many studies have now linked higher ozone levels to the death rate from heart and lung ailments that cities are now issuing smog alerts to warn those at risk to stay indoors.
Droughts will occur, but also, as unstable weather patterns increase, there will be an increase in flooding, bringing with it more waterborne diseases as well as the spread of insects that thrive in waterlogged lands, such as mosquitoes.
South Africa's tourism industry contributes as much as 10% to our GDP, a figure that is increasing all the time. Many foreign tourists visit our country to view and marvel at our extraordinary range of wildlife, so well managed by our national parks and on private game farms. We rely heavily on our unique natural resource base to attract tourism.
The likely scenario of a climbing temperature will be increasing drought, drier soils, more fires and, inevitably, a loss of habitat and biodiversity. As our Bushveld slowly but surely turns into arid grasslands, one wonders what this would mean for our Big Five as their habitat changes. So, what now?
The world is starting to wake up to the fact that environmental collapse is happening in so many places at once. A total of 141 nations have now ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but it is extraordinary that the United States, which is home to less than 5% of the world's population, produces 25% of CO2 emissions, remains intransigent, with Australia refusing to sign.
Finally, Madam Chair, South Africa has, of course, come on board and is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. And whilst the picture I have painted in my speech sets out how serious our situation is, the critical challenge now is how we deal with it proactively. Questions need to be asked.
Is our energy strategy the correct one? Are we doing enough in the field of renewable energy? Surely every new house should have solar water heaters and a water tank. Are biofuels the way to go?
And how can we begin to contain the large numbers of vehicles on our roads? How can we improve our public transport system and by so doing reduce those numbers?
So many questions are being asked, and it is going to take an extraordinary amount of research, commitment and energy from each and every one of us to come up with answers that can slow down this fearful crisis facing our planet.
We should bear in mind what one journalist said. If life in its current form were to die out, this planet would recover, but we would probably have written ourselves out of the script. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, comrades and hon members, by drafting the Kyoto Protocol the international community was expressing near universal unanimity about the self-evident threat of global warming to humanity. Kyoto was a call for action by all concerned to avert the negative and near catastrophic consequences of global warming.
Whilst global warming will affect all humanity adversely, it is the poor and exploited countries of the south that will suffer the most. Whilst international awareness has been raised about it, concerted action by the biggest polluters has been absent or very slow in coming. This is because measures to combat this threat do not make immediate profit sense to big business and their governments. Ten years after Kyoto there is still much that needs to be done.
We need to reaffirm our commitment to the protocol. Popular education and mobilisation should be the fulcrum of our strategic and tactical line. Whilst acknowledging and encouraging measures adopted by the European Union and Britain recently, we nonetheless still need to insist that more can be done and be done faster and sooner. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, global warming and the changes to weather patterns have raised concerns globally, but not enough awareness has been motivated over the harsh reality, the consequences and preventive measures that can be endorsed to slow down global warming and preserve our planet. The next President to President Bush of the USA, Al Gore, has initiated an effective programme to endorse government into the reality of global warming.
A documentary by Al Gore called An Inconvenient Truth, has been playing at the Cinema Nouveau, and to those who have watched this documentary, it is a serious eye-opener and a very scary reality where all our nations are headed if global warming is not slowed down. It would be to no avail if we are striving for liberation, democracy, equality, growth and social development or any other priority on our agenda if in reality we are not driving our planet to avert disaster.
The limitations placed on nations on the emissions by greenhouse gas by Kyoto Protocol are not enough to address the situation. Pollutants and fast developing industries' gas dominates our atmosphere. We need to agenda our reality as a nation with regards to global warming and endorse protocol that needs to be adjudicated in every sector of governance and daily lives.
We need to enforce strong legislation that shall govern the emission of poisonous and harmful gases into our atmosphere. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson and hon members of the National Assembly, global climate change, often referred to as global warming, possibly poses a greatest challenge facing mankind this century. It emanates from the build-up of human emissions of heat-trapping gases in the earth's atmosphere, intensifying the greenhouse effect, thus engendering changes in our climate.
This increase in volume of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases released by burning fossil fuels, land clearing for agriculture, logging and other human activities are the primary sources of the human-induced component of global warming.
The climate change issue has been growing in seriousness since the middle of the twentieth century and consequently became the focus of international strategies to minimise greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent warming of the earth's surface.
The Kyoto Protocol, which is the instrument of the United Nations framework on climate change, becomes operational for the first commitment period 2008 - 2012.
Global warming poses a serious threat to sustainable development in developing countries and could well undermine global poverty alleviation efforts and have serious implications for food security, clean water, energy supply, environmental health and human settlements.
Global warming does not occur by default. Human activity creates the problem and every bit of coal, oil and gas that we burn adds to the load of gases in the atmosphere trapping heat and smothering people and the natural world alike. I raised the issue of climate change in this department's Budget Vote in 2006 and therefore am greatly encouraged that the programming committee has slotted in this debate during this session of Parliament.
International best practice strategies aimed at preventing or the abatement of climate change incorporate action on both mitigation and adaptation strategies. Mitigation refers to reducing greenhouse gas emissions or removing them from the atmosphere and embracing energy efficiency, so that less fuel is used. It embraces sources of energy that emit no greenhouse gases such as renewable energy.
Mitigation initiatives globally would incorporate the following practices: Implementing sustainable development; adopting cleaner energy technologies; promoting and implementing renewable energy technologies; and promoting and implementing energy-efficient practices. The concrete examples of mitigation initiatives include CDM or the Clean Development Mechanism and carbon emission trading.
The National Climate Change Response Strategy developed by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism puts forward a number of mitigation strategies for South Africa. These initiatives form an integral part of sustainable development and cleaner technology usage such as the Vehicle Emissions Strategy, aimed at reducing emissions from motor vehicles. The mitigation option project is investigating possible mitigation options that could be implemented, viz, renewable energy sources and energy sources such as nuclear energy.
Successful climate change abatement strategies would use a mix of mitigation and adaptation, as adaptation will become increasingly more difficult and costly, the less mitigation appears on the radar screen. Mitigation measures should remain in focus, receive priority as source- diverse impacts such as loss of rare species and melting of glaciers cannot be reversed. Moreover, mitigation goes to the root of the problem of climate change, viz, emissions from human activities precipitating changes in our climate.
Even if all the greenhouse gas emissions were stopped today, the greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere would be enough to cause climate change. Further, CO2 emissions are likely to rise in the coming decades. The changes in the climate are already happening. The world must therefore be prepared to adapt to the effects of global warming.
Some adaptation strategies would include better flood defences or relocation mechanisms that can be used to deal with rising sea levels; avoiding more vulnerable areas for building houses; agricultural production can adapt to the decreasing availability of water through better water management; urban areas could adapt increasingly to severe storms by increasing rainwater storage through the use of domestic water butts, paved gardens, etc, and increasing capacity of storm water systems so that overflows do not contaminate rivers.
Measures should be enforced to ensure food security in the face of less reliable agricultural yields, particularly in areas where drought take centre stage.
Our Minister, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, stated in 2005:
If South Africa did not immediately adapt to the effects of climate change, it would cost the country 1.5% of the GDP by 2050, roughly equivalent to the total foreign investment in South Africa at present.
I dare say that there are much more serious consequences for South Africa and the African continent than the rest of the world. Whilst adaptation would appear to be the most useful and least economically disruptive response to climate change variability, this would probably be a very short- sighted approach.
Focusing on adaptation to local impacts of change is not a responsible position for any country to adopt. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that mitigation strategies have additional, extremely valuable, benefits that are often overlooked. These include improvements in local environmental quality, public health and wellbeing and the stimulation of the local economy. Last Friday 27 members of the EU meeting in Brussels signed an agreement which commits EU to, firstly, 20% reduction in carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2020, and secondly to generate one fifth of its energy needs from renewables.
Greenpeace hailed the initiative as the biggest such decision since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said at the same meeting: "There is still time to reduce global warming and by so doing avoid a human calamity."
I hope the United States, Australia, Japan and India are listening and taking note. So far the government has committed a very small amount of its resources to renewable energy for the next decade.
To quote Andre Fourie and Kuzene Dlamini of the National Business Initiative:
South Africa and Africa have played a marginal role in this debate. Yet climate change poses a serious threat to peace and stability in Africa more than political conflicts have done since the advent of independence.
The recurring floods in Mozambique and the drought in most Southern African countries are some of the visible signs of the effect of climate change on the ground. Urgent action is therefore needed now and not later.
It is increasingly becoming a key strategic imperative that businesses, government, civil society and academia collaborate in shaping the global debate on climate change rather than only following or responding, as we often do, to a debate whose parameters are increasingly being set elsewhere.
It is clear that a balanced approach in dealing with climate change is imperative. This implies that both mitigation and adaptation are necessary strategies to deal with this phenomenon. It is incumbent upon all of us to leave no stone unturned in our quest to stem the tide of the dangers that are looming large on our horizon and to take steps to protect this generation and all future generations to come from the catastrophic consequences to humanity if we fail to respond urgently and aggressively to the effects of global warming and climate change. I thank you very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.