* PROFESSOR ROMAN GRYNBERG and VICTORIA NDZINGE - ANDERSON
The UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference is a rare meeting where the parties that are attending all agree weeks prior to the meeting that they will fail to achieve their stated objective, that is to conclude a legally binding treaty that will limit green house gas (GHG) emissions.
Advertisement
Advertise Here
The organisers have succeeded in dampening expectations but what is generally hoped for now is the outline of an agreement with the legal treaty completed within a year.
Damages to Agriculture and Tourism
The discussions in Copenhagen are of great importance to Botswana because global warming is likely to worsen the country's already arid climate. Under what is known as the 'hotter and drier scenario' Botswana's average yields on maize and sorghum crops, which already quite low, could fall by a further 30% in the coming years. A shorter growing season for most crops can also be expected. Pasture land for cattle is also expected to be degraded as thorn and bush spread at the expense of grass land.
Also of great importance to rural communities is that under the 'hotter and drier scenario' the amount of firewood available for cooking will also decrease. Climate change is also associated with more violent and frequent storms and it is expected that floods will become more common and that this may also have the effect of increasing water born diseases like malaria which are more common in the north of the country but could start occurring further south as a result of climate change.
It is also widely expected that climate change will adversely affect the country's wildlife this will in turn affect tourism. The government of Botswana is well aware of these affects and has been studying them for over a decade. Various government ministries have prepared strategies to deal with many of these effects but what they lack is the resources to implement them. What Copenhagen should deliver is not only a commitment to lower GHG emissions but also a financial mechanism for all developing countries, including Botswana to deal with climate change. In the end though it will be up to governments to implement these changes.
Who is responsible for the Climate change mess?
The answer is in short definitely not Botswana (0.02% of the world's GHG emissions) and not Africa (3% of the world's emissions). The biggest polluters as is well known are the rich OECD (developed) countries and China which are together responsible for two thirds of the world's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Botswana and Africa are a tiny portion and certainly will not be expected to make any significant reductions in CO2 emission in the short term. But over time all of Africa will be expected to make adjustments and there are expected to be resources available for Botswana to make these changes
Africa is not 'Africa'
To think that all of Africa will be exempt from these GHG emission commitments to lower GHG emissions could be wrong. The least developed countries like Angola or Zambia or Lesotho will almost certainly not be forced to make any real reduction commitments. But middle income countries like South Africa will have to make some commitments.
In fact South Africa is responsible for almost 40% of Africa's GHG emissions. And this is where the situation gets complicated for Botswana. South Africa and other middle income countries are not likely to get an easy ride from the developed countries at Copenhagen.
Pretoria is keenly aware that it will have to make reductions in its GHG emission if Copenhagen negotiations are to be a success. So the government has been planning the development of an extensive network of nuclear reactors to supply 'clean' (but nonetheless very risky) energy for SA energy thirsty economy.
Early this week the South African government announced a major GHG emission objective which will certainly be the basis of its Copenhagen negotiating position. It has been reported that the SA government will, over the next 10 years reduce emissions by 34% from "business as usual," the level they would reach under ordinary circumstances. By 2025 that figure would peak at 42%, effectively leveling off and thereafter begin to decline.
Coal and Electricity
This commitment by South Africa to reduce the growth of emission immediately and cut GHG emissions from 2025 has implications for Botswana's immediate development concerns. Botswana has enormous coal deposits and seeks to become an electricity exporting country. The development of the huge Mmamabula project which is by far the largest will be viable if it can export roughly 75% of its output of 1,200 MW to South Africa. Coal is the most GHG emitting of all fossil fuels and South Africa's recently announced commitments to lower GHG may well affect its choice as to whether it wants to use imported electricity generated from coal or its own sources.
While at the moment the contract negotiations over the Mmamabula project with Eskom revolve around agreed electricity prices one of the factors that will have to be considered by the SA government is whether in the longer term it wants more coal generated electricity given its Copenhagen commitments.
While the issue of coal should be of concern to Botswana's negotiators its importance should not be overstated. The real risk to Botswana is not that electricity exports would be stopped if Copenhagen succeeds but if Copenhagen and the subsequent technical negotiations fails to deliver on the promise to genuinely lower GHG emissions it will condemn the next generation of Batswana to suffer the very serious consequences of global climate change that is not of their making and not in their purview to solve. This would be a far greater cost.
* Grynberg is Senior Research Fellow and Ndzinge-Anderson an Associate Researcher at the Botswana Institute for Development Policy Analysis. The paper is based on a research piece prepared by Ndzinge-Anderson entitled 'The Economic and Social Impacts of Climate Change: The Case of Botswana'.
Source:mmegi.bw/
The UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference is a rare meeting where the parties that are attending all agree weeks prior to the meeting that they will fail to achieve their stated objective, that is to conclude a legally binding treaty that will limit green house gas (GHG) emissions.
Advertisement
Advertise Here
The organisers have succeeded in dampening expectations but what is generally hoped for now is the outline of an agreement with the legal treaty completed within a year.
Damages to Agriculture and Tourism
The discussions in Copenhagen are of great importance to Botswana because global warming is likely to worsen the country's already arid climate. Under what is known as the 'hotter and drier scenario' Botswana's average yields on maize and sorghum crops, which already quite low, could fall by a further 30% in the coming years. A shorter growing season for most crops can also be expected. Pasture land for cattle is also expected to be degraded as thorn and bush spread at the expense of grass land.
Also of great importance to rural communities is that under the 'hotter and drier scenario' the amount of firewood available for cooking will also decrease. Climate change is also associated with more violent and frequent storms and it is expected that floods will become more common and that this may also have the effect of increasing water born diseases like malaria which are more common in the north of the country but could start occurring further south as a result of climate change.
It is also widely expected that climate change will adversely affect the country's wildlife this will in turn affect tourism. The government of Botswana is well aware of these affects and has been studying them for over a decade. Various government ministries have prepared strategies to deal with many of these effects but what they lack is the resources to implement them. What Copenhagen should deliver is not only a commitment to lower GHG emissions but also a financial mechanism for all developing countries, including Botswana to deal with climate change. In the end though it will be up to governments to implement these changes.
Who is responsible for the Climate change mess?
The answer is in short definitely not Botswana (0.02% of the world's GHG emissions) and not Africa (3% of the world's emissions). The biggest polluters as is well known are the rich OECD (developed) countries and China which are together responsible for two thirds of the world's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Botswana and Africa are a tiny portion and certainly will not be expected to make any significant reductions in CO2 emission in the short term. But over time all of Africa will be expected to make adjustments and there are expected to be resources available for Botswana to make these changes
Africa is not 'Africa'
To think that all of Africa will be exempt from these GHG emission commitments to lower GHG emissions could be wrong. The least developed countries like Angola or Zambia or Lesotho will almost certainly not be forced to make any real reduction commitments. But middle income countries like South Africa will have to make some commitments.
In fact South Africa is responsible for almost 40% of Africa's GHG emissions. And this is where the situation gets complicated for Botswana. South Africa and other middle income countries are not likely to get an easy ride from the developed countries at Copenhagen.
Pretoria is keenly aware that it will have to make reductions in its GHG emission if Copenhagen negotiations are to be a success. So the government has been planning the development of an extensive network of nuclear reactors to supply 'clean' (but nonetheless very risky) energy for SA energy thirsty economy.
Early this week the South African government announced a major GHG emission objective which will certainly be the basis of its Copenhagen negotiating position. It has been reported that the SA government will, over the next 10 years reduce emissions by 34% from "business as usual," the level they would reach under ordinary circumstances. By 2025 that figure would peak at 42%, effectively leveling off and thereafter begin to decline.
Coal and Electricity
This commitment by South Africa to reduce the growth of emission immediately and cut GHG emissions from 2025 has implications for Botswana's immediate development concerns. Botswana has enormous coal deposits and seeks to become an electricity exporting country. The development of the huge Mmamabula project which is by far the largest will be viable if it can export roughly 75% of its output of 1,200 MW to South Africa. Coal is the most GHG emitting of all fossil fuels and South Africa's recently announced commitments to lower GHG may well affect its choice as to whether it wants to use imported electricity generated from coal or its own sources.
While at the moment the contract negotiations over the Mmamabula project with Eskom revolve around agreed electricity prices one of the factors that will have to be considered by the SA government is whether in the longer term it wants more coal generated electricity given its Copenhagen commitments.
While the issue of coal should be of concern to Botswana's negotiators its importance should not be overstated. The real risk to Botswana is not that electricity exports would be stopped if Copenhagen succeeds but if Copenhagen and the subsequent technical negotiations fails to deliver on the promise to genuinely lower GHG emissions it will condemn the next generation of Batswana to suffer the very serious consequences of global climate change that is not of their making and not in their purview to solve. This would be a far greater cost.
* Grynberg is Senior Research Fellow and Ndzinge-Anderson an Associate Researcher at the Botswana Institute for Development Policy Analysis. The paper is based on a research piece prepared by Ndzinge-Anderson entitled 'The Economic and Social Impacts of Climate Change: The Case of Botswana'.
Source:mmegi.bw/
Permanent short link for Go Daddy.com Just ez2.me
Remember nick name for Godaddy.com www.ez2.me Tell your friends about Easy To Me, Go Daddy,s Approved affiliate
No comments:
Post a Comment