Long-Term Mitigation Scenarios (LTMS) g g ( )for South Africa

Jongikhaya WitiJongikhaya WitiDepartment of Environmental Affairs & Tourism

Energy Research Centre, University of Cape TownAIM Training Workshop NIES, Tsukuba, Japan

27 31 S t b 200827 - 31 September 2008

The ContextClimate Change is real

The ContextClimate Change is real

and its predicted impacts for SA are serious

Climate Change evidence & impacts

• Climate change is already having• Scientific evidence for a • Climate change is already having predominantly negative impacts on people and ecosystems. South Africa is suffering and will

Scientific evidence for a rise in global temperatureover the past century

l • South Africa is suffering and will suffer serious impacts under global business-as-usual:

Water stress

unequivocal• Climate change almost

t i l d i b • Water stress• Floods• Rainfall patterns

certainly driven byincreased greenhouse gas concentrations caused by

• Spreading malariaconcentrations caused by human activities

The ChallengeThe Challenge

The World has a GHG emission problem Time is limitedTime is limited

We will have to act globallySouth Africa is in a unique situationSouth Africa is in a unique situation

Mitigation is urgenttime to bend the curve is short

“It is clear that delaying action on this matter of climate change will hit poor countries and communities hardest” Pres Mbeki UN GA

20072007

SA compared to other countries

E i i itEmissions per capita

12

14

16

n n c

Emissions intensity

600700800

l int

'l $

6

8

10

12

2-eq

per

per

so

Def

ores

tatio et

c

100200300400500600

s C

O2

/ mill

0

2

4

South Brazil China India OECD World

t CO -

South Afric

aBrazil

China

IndiaOECD

World

tons

Africa So

• Relative to the size of our population, emissions ‘per capita’ are high• Emissions-intensity due to dependency on coal and inefficient use of

energy• Share of cumulative emissions lower than annual - historical

responsibility works bestresponsibility works best

LTMSMandate & Objectives

LTMSj

Scenario Building TeamProductsProducts

LTMS mandate & objectives

• LTMS is a Cabinet-mandated process for id tif i i f iti ti f li tidentifying scenarios for mitigation of climate change

d b d b C• Led by DEAT, project managed by ERC, independent facilitation by Tokiso

• Two sets of key outputs:• Robust, broadly supported recommendations for a , y pp

long-term national climate policy• Sound basis for SA negotiating position for

negotiations on post-2012 • Follow up with awareness and implementation

The work of the Scenario Building Team (SBT)

S i B ildi T bli h d A 2006• Scenario Building Team established Aug 2006 to carry out the technical aspects

• SBT made up of strategic thinkers from government,industry, labour, civil society, as well as other y, , y,relevant players

• Commissioned research teams to provide• Commissioned research teams to provide information 24 Octobe 2007 afte mo e than a ea of intense• 24 October 2007, after more than a year of intense work, the initial technical work of the LTMS was i d ff b SBTsigned off by SBT

LTMS productsAPPROVED by

all members of SBT

All t h i l t

A) Scenario Document B) T h i l S

All technical reports ACCEPTED

by SBT as rigorous researchbest available scientific

i f ti B) Technical SummaryTechnical Report and Appendix

cess

Technical Inputs:

information adequate basis to inform the further LTMS process

S P

roc Technical Inputs:

- Energy emissions- Non-energy emissions

Full texts of the various research groups

LTM

S Non energy emissions-Economy – wide analysis

- Climate impactspFacilitated PROCESS

with strategic thinkers from key stakeholder sectorsy

Cabinet on LTMS

•• Cabinet lekgotla considered LTMS outcomes Cabinet lekgotla considered LTMS outcomes gg(July 2008)(July 2008)S t i i t t i di ti d f k fS t i i t t i di ti d f k f•• Set vision, strategic direction and framework for Set vision, strategic direction and framework for policy directions policy directions p yp y

•• Policy development process to followPolicy development process to follow

LTMS: Process and research

Robust and broadly supported results hi d th h t h i lachieved through technical

methodology and extensive stakeholder involvement

Management, Facilitation Team & Secretariat

• Joanne Yawitch and DEAT team (Project• Joanne Yawitch and DEAT team (Project Manager)H ld Wi kl (P j t L d) Pi M kh ibi• Harald Winkler (Project Lead), Pierre Mukheibir (Administration)

• Facilitators: Stefan Raubenheimer (Lead), Edwin Mohlalehi, and Pascal Moloi (High Level)Mohlalehi, and Pascal Moloi (High Level)

• Tokiso Secretariat: Tanya Venter, Yasmin Moola, Rachel Mosupye Elin LorimerRachel Mosupye, Elin Lorimer

Scenario Building Team

Government Business Civil society Government• DEAT Environment• DME Minerals & Energy• DST Science & Technology

• SASOL• Eskom• EIUG Energy Intensive

U G

y• EcoCity/CURES• Groundwork• SESSA• DST Science & Technology

• DoT Transport • Treasury• Foreign Affairs

Users Group• Engen• Grain SA • Anglo Coal

• SESSA• Labour (NUM)• SEA • SACANg

• DTI Trade & Industry• DPE Public Enterprises • DWAF Water Affairs & Forestry

P id

• Anglo Coal• BHP Billiton• Chamber of Mines • Aluminium – AFSA

• COSATU• SALGA• WWF-SA

• Presidency• SAWS Weather Services • CEF / SA Nat’l Energy Research

Institute

• Kumba Resources• Chemical – CAIA • Engen

• Earthlife Africa

Institute• NERSA Energy Regulator • W Cape Province (DEADP)• City of Johannesburg

• Forestry SA• AgriSA• Business Unity SA• Sappi• Sappi

Four research teams and inputs from stakeholder experts

• Energy Emissions (led by ERC modeling)• Alison Hughes, Mary Haw, Harald Winkler, Andrew Marquard, Bruno Merven• Markal model reviewed by Stephen Pye (AEAT, UK)• Expert input from stakeholders: Sonwabo Damba (Eskom); Energy Efficiency Technical Committee special meeting: Ian Langridge

(Anglo American), Valerie Geen, Tsvetana Mateva, Hermien vd Walt (all three National Business Initiative); Chesney Bradshaw (ABB); Barry Bredenkamp (Nat’l Energy Efficiency Agency); Burt Buissine (British American Tobacco); Rochelle Chetty Sonwabo Damba, (both Eskom); LJ Grobler (NW University); Chris Teffo (Chamber of Mines); Alan Munn (Engen); Egmont Otterman (PPCement); Nico Smith (Mittal Steel); Neal Smither (BP); Theresa Maree (Eon)(PPCement); Nico Smith (Mittal Steel); Neal Smither (BP); Theresa Maree (Eon)

• Non-Energy Emissions (led by CSIR)• Rina Taviv, Marna van der Merwe, Bob Scholes and Gill Collet• Industrial process emissions: G Kornelius (Airshed), A Marquard and H Winkler• Expert input from stakeholders: Linda Godfrey (NRE CSIR) Antony Phiri (NRE CSIR) Harma Greben (NRE CSIR) Susanne Dittke• Expert input from stakeholders: Linda Godfrey (NRE CSIR), Antony Phiri (NRE CSIR), Harma Greben (NRE CSIR), Susanne Dittke

(EnviroSense CC), Saliem Haider (City of Cape Town) and Stan Jewaskiewitz (Envitech Solutions); John Scotcher ForestLore Consulting, Howick and Johan Bester from the DWAF. Johan Claasen from NDA, Pietman Botha from GrainSA, Sylvester Mpandeli and Matiga Motsepe from the ARC, Koos van Zyl and Nic Opperman from AgriSA; Guy F Midgley from SANBI and Brian van Wilgen from CSIR.

• Economy-wide research (led by UCT economics)y ( y )• Kalie Pauw, with Celeste Coetzee• Reviewed by Dirk van Seventer (TIPS)• 2 special meetings of economists: Roger Baxter (Chamber of Mines). Raymond Parsons (Nedlac); Theo van Rensburg, Louise Du

Plessis, Marna Kearney (all three Naitonal Treasury); Ashraf Kariem (Presidency); Stephen Gelb (Edge Institute); Michael McClintock (Sasol); James Blignaut (University of Pretoria); Simi Siwisi BUSA(Sasol); James Blignaut (University of Pretoria); Simi Siwisi BUSA

• Climate Change Impacts (led by SANBI)• G Midgley, with Pierre Mukheibir• Expert authors: R Chapman, P Mukheibir, M Tadross, B Hewitson, S Wand, R Schulze, T Lumsden, M Horan, M Warburton, B

Kgope, B Mantlana, A Knowles, A Abayomi, G Ziervogel, R Cullis and A Therong p , , , y , g ,

The GapTwo Scenarios presented by the SBT

The GapTwo Scenarios presented by the SBT

frame the choices for South Africa

Two Scenarios: Growth without Constraints and Required by Science

1,800

1,400

1,600

1,000

1,200

uiva

lent Growth without Constraints

THE GAP

Gap: difference between where emissions might go and where they need to go

600

800

,

Mt C

O2-

equ

Current Dev PathTHE GAPy g

(GWC – RBS, emissions in 2050)Gap is 1300 Mt CO2-eq in 2050

More than three times 2003 annual emissions

400

600M

R i d b S i

2003 annual emissions

-

200 Required by Science

The Technical OptionsThe Technical Options

Wedges = Individual Mitigation Actionsg gShowing Emission Reductions

& Costs (and savings)& Costs (and savings)

0

150

300

R 20

Nuclear, extended

50 SW H subsidy25

50 Electric vehicles in GW C grid

S f l th450

600

Escalating CO2 tax

0

5

10

-R 4,404

Limit less eff

Ele ctr ic ve hicle s w ith

0 0

50 CCS 20 Mt

0

25-R 208 0

25R 607

25

50

-R 203

Commercia l efficiency

Manure management

05

10R 8

Synfuels methane

0

150

300R 42

0

150

300

R 102

nuclear, rene w ables

300Re new ables , extended

0

25R 72

50 Biofuel subsidy0

25

50

R 524

Biofuels0

-R 203

05

10

-R 19

g

10R 0

Aluminium

0

150R 92 0

25R 697

25

50 Hybrids

150

300 Im prove d vehicle e fficiency

All Medium Wedges

150

300 All Small W edges

2550

510

Enteric fermentation

05 R 0

150

300Subs idy for re new ables

0

25R 1,987

0

150-R 269

25

50Residentia l e fficiency

0

150

025

05 R 50

510

Reduced tillage

Waste management0

150R 125

25

50

R 5

Cleaner coal

Passenger modal shift

0

25-R 198

05 R 24

02550

R 14

aste a age e t

510

R 39

Afforestation

150

300Renewables with learning,

extended

R3

0

150

300

-R 34

Indus tr ial e fficiency0

-R 5

0

25

50

-R 1,131

Passenger modal shift

2550

-R15

Fire control

0R 39

05

10R 476

Synfuels CCS 2 Mt

50Synfuels CCS 23 Mt

0R3

0

0

150

300

R 18

Nucle ar

0

150

300

R 52

Renew ables 0R 15

05

10R 346

Coal mine methane

0

02550

R 105

Strategic OptionsStrategic Options

Four packages of actions to get from GWCto get from GWC

towards the goal ofRequired by Science

Four Strategic Options

1800

Start Now is a combination ofaggressive energy efficiency+

Scale Up is a combination ofStart NowUse the Market is as an 300

Industrial efficiency300

Industrial efficiencyEscalating CO2 tax

1400

1600

Growth withoutConstraints

+27% nuclear and 27% renewable energy generation

+ extension of energy generation to50% nuclear and

Use the Market is as analternative instrument to Scale Up; it applies a carbon tax (starting from R100

0

150-R 34

300Renewables

0

150

300

-R 34

300Nuclear, extended

150

300

450

600

R 42

1000

1200

ConstraintsReach for the Goal

energy generationby 205050% renewable by 2050

(starting from R100(slowing emissions growth); R250 (stabilising emissions)to R750 (absolute

0

150R 52

300Nuclear

0

150R 20

Renewables, extended

0

150

300Subsidy for renewables

1. New technology2. Identify resources

600

800

Start Now

Use the MarketScale Up

to R750 (absolute reductions 2040ff) plus incentives

300Passenger modal shift

0

150R 18

0150300

R 92

300Synfuels CCS 23 Mt

0

150R 125

300

Biofuel subsidy

3. People-oriented measures4. Transition to a low carbon economy

400

600

Required by Science

Use the MarketScale Up0

150-R 1,131

300Improved vehicle efficiency

0150300

R 54

300Electric vehicles in GWC grid

0

150 R 697

300SWH subsidy

0

200 Required by Science0

150-R 269

0

150

300

R 6070

150

300

-R 208

Key steps by Strategic Option

Start NowStart Now Scale UpScale Up Use the Use the M k tM k t

Reach for Reach for ppMarketMarket the Goalthe Goal

-- New New 150

300Industrial efficiency

150

300

R 34

Industrial efficiency

600

Escalating CO2 tax

technologytechnology-- Identify Identify

0 -R 34

150

300

R 52

Renewables

0-R 34

150

300

R 20

Nuclear, extended

0

150

300

450

R 42

resourcesresources-- PeoplePeople--

i di d

0R 52

150

300

R 18

Nuclear

0R 20

Renewables, extended

150300

0

150

300

R 125

Subsidy for renewables

oriented oriented measuresmeasures

Transition toTransition to0

150

300

-R 1,131

Passenger modal shift

0 R 180

150R 92

150300

R 54

Synfuels CCS 23 Mt

0

0

150

300

R 697

Biofuel subsidy

-- Transition to Transition to low carbon low carbon economyeconomy

0 ,

150

300

-R 269

Improved vehicle efficiency

0 R 54

150

300

R 607

Electric vehicles in GWC grid

0

150

300

R 208

SWH subsidy

economy economy 0 R 2690

R 6070

-R 208

CostsCosts

&

Economy-wide yimplications

Total mitigation costs in relation to the size of the economy

1.5%0 Limit on low-efficiency

vehicles1 +Passenger modal shift1% Threshold

0.5%

1.0%

e of

GD

P

Without industrial efficiency

14

15

14

15

1 +Passenger modal shift2 +Improved vehicle

efficiency3 +SWH subsidy

-0.5%

0.0%

ost a

s sh

are industrial efficiency

0

10

11 12

13

9 11 12

13

14 y4 +Commercial efficiency5 +Residential efficiency6 +Industrial efficiency7 Cl l

-1.5%

-1.0%

Miti

gatio

n co

With i d t i l ffi i

101

2

37

9

8

109

7 +Cleaner coal8 +Nuclear9 +Escalating CO2 tax10 +Renewables

-2.5%

-2.0%

5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000

M industrial efficiency543

76 8

10 +Renewables 11 +CCS 20 Mt12 +Subsidy for renewables13 +Biofuels- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Mt CO2 reduced, 2003-2050 14 +Electric vehicles in GWC grid15 +Hybrids

Mitigation costs as share of GDP, for runs of combined wedgeseach time adding another as in list at right

Economy Wide Impacts

Impact on GDP Employment (change in jobs) Impact on poverty (change in income distribution)

+0.2% in 2015 2% in 2015Jobs slightly below that of

the reference case. Notlarge, but any job loss isof concern and would

household welfare rises 3% on average

Start of concern and wouldhave to be off-set

Lowest figure is -2.5% forsemi-skilled workers in2010

Start Now

+1% in 2015 Overall 1% improvement in 2015

Semi-skilled jobs peak at 3% in 2015

Scale Up

-2 % 2015Negative effect on economy,

unless off-set by othermeasures

Jobs increase for lower-skilled (+3% semi-skilled, 0% for unskilledin 2015)

Overall, negative welfareeffects, except poorerhouseholds 0%

Up

Use the measures in 2015)Decrease for higher-skilled

workers (-2% for skilledand -4% for highlyskilled)

Market

POLICY DIRECTIONS

•• The feedback from the LTMS highThe feedback from the LTMS high--level process, taken with level process, taken with C bi t’ di ti d li li t l i h bC bi t’ di ti d li li t l i h bCabinet’s direction and a policy alignment analysis, has been Cabinet’s direction and a policy alignment analysis, has been translated into translated into 6 broad policy direction themes6 broad policy direction themes..

•• Theme 1: Greenhouse gas emission reductions and limits Theme 1: Greenhouse gas emission reductions and limits •• Theme 2: Build on, strengthen and/or scale up current initiatives Theme 2: Build on, strengthen and/or scale up current initiatives , g / p, g / p•• Theme 3: Implementing the “Business Unusual” Call for Action Theme 3: Implementing the “Business Unusual” Call for Action •• Theme 4: Preparing for the future Theme 4: Preparing for the future

Th 5 V l bili d Ad iTh 5 V l bili d Ad i•• Theme 5: Vulnerability and Adaptation Theme 5: Vulnerability and Adaptation •• Theme 6: Alignment, Coordination and CooperationTheme 6: Alignment, Coordination and Cooperation

See Annexure A – LTMS Policy Directions

Theme 1: GHG emission reductions and limits (Cont.)( )

Peak

Decline

Plateau

Decline

Thank youThank you

For additional information visitwww.environment.gov.za: go to Hot Issues, wait for LTMS

http://www.environment.gov.za/HotIssues/2008/LTMS/A%20LTMS%20Scenarios%20for%20SA.pdf