Prof Philip Lloyd Energy Institute CPUT lloydpcput ac

* Prof Philip Lloyd, Energy Institute, CPUT lloydp@cput. ac. za

*The Department claims it is *The Department leads no evidence to that effect *It claims there will be persistent drought and extreme weather events, rising sea levels, coastal erosion and ocean acidification *Let’s check! * Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015

1300 1200 Rainfall, mm 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 1716 1766 1816 Rainfall * Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015 1866 Trend Year 1916 Lower 95% 1966 Upper 95% 2016 2066

* What is normal? * For most climate-related phenomena, we need to measure for a long time to make sure we are looking at reality * Because the climate changes naturally * So it too early to say anything meaningful about persistent droughts or extreme weather events * We have only really been looking hard since 1992 * How about sea level? * Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015

* Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015

* Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015

* So the Department is also wrong on sea level * They could be right on coastal erosion – but they could also be wrong * Coastal erosion is inevitable if the sea level rises * We certainly cannot say climate change has made it worse * The sea has an average p. H of 8. 1 today * It may have been 8. 2 long ago * p. H 8. 1 is alkaline, not acid * The claim that it has acidified is “imprecise” * Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015

*Substantial (45%) increases in GHG’s since 1996 have had no significant effect * The temperature was predicted to go up 0. 4 o. C * It has gone up 0. 1 o. C *The temperature went up by 0. 45 o. C between 1910 and 1940, yet there was no real increase in GHG’s *Both CO 2 and GHG’s went up between 1970 and 1996 * Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015

Temperature anomaly, deg C 0, 6 0, 4 0, 2 0, 0 -0, 2 -0, 4 -0, 6 1860 1880 1900 * Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

* If it will have minimal impact, why should we? * And are these targets realistic? * No! * “In this scenario the components are imagined rather than arrived at through the rigour of modelling” (Long Term Mitigation Scenarios) * Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015

*The “Required by Science” scenario was developed with its components imagined *The scenario is not based on known technologies with well-understood parameters, including cost * It was not possible to quantify the emission reductions or the costs of behavioural changes. * Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015

* If it will have minimal impact, why should we? * And are these targets realistic? * No! *“In this scenario the components are imagined rather than arrived at through the rigour of modelling” (Long Term Mitigation Scenarios) * The Department’s plan is based upon someone’s dreams * Even though the President gave them his approval, their practicality has never been shown * Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015

*The globe has been warming for over 150 years *There is NO indication of increasing severity *Adaptation may save $0. 05 -0. 9 bn (2020 -2030), $0. 2 -3. 0 bn (2020 -2050) *At a cost $0. 7 -1. 9 bn (2010 -2015) *A worse investment would be difficult to imagine * Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015

* $30 billion REIPPPP by 2020 * $349 bn decarbonisation by 2050 * $0. 45 bn CCS (20 Mt – if we can find somewhere to put it) * $513 bn electric vehicles by 2050 * $488 bn hybrids by 2030 * $1380. 45 + ? $180 bn new REIPPPP + ? $650 bn new hybrids * Say $2210 bn * ~R 15 500 per year for every South African man woman and child for the next 35 years * Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015

*China will only level out in 2030 * By which time its emissions will have grown by over 2 000 million tonnes * And we hope to save the world by cutting our emissions by 100 million tonnes? *India has refused to say if or when its emissions will level out * It says economic development is more important * Our Department’s report doesn’t even mention jobs * Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015

*We should abandon the Department’s pipe dream without further ado * We have no hope of saving the world on our own *We should join the Like Minded Group of Developing Countries * They represent most of the developing world *And make our contribution to COP 21 reflect our priorities for development over our desire to look good environmentally. * Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015

* Any questions? Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015