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

2. * 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

4. * 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?

5. Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015

7. * 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 pH of 8.1 today * It may have been 8.2 long ago * pH 8.1 is alkaline, not acid * The claim that it has acidified is “imprecise”

8. 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

9. Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015

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

11. 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.

12. Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015 * If it will have minimal impact, why should we? * And are these targets realistic? * No! 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

13. Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015 * The globe has been warming for over 150 years * There is NO indication of increasing severity * Adaptation may save $0.05-0.9bn (2020-2030), $0.2-3.0bn (2020-2050) * At a cost $0.7-1.9bn (2010-2015) * A worse investment would be difficult to imagine

14. Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015 * $30 billion REIPPPP by 2020 * $349bn decarbonisation by 2050 * $0.45bn CCS (20Mt – if we can find somewhere to put it) * $513bn electric vehicles by 2050 * $488bn hybrids by 2030 * $1380.45 + ?$180bn new REIPPPP + ?$650bn new hybrids * Say $2210bn * ~R15 500 per year for every South African man woman and child for the next 35 years

15. 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

16. 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 COP21 reflect our priorities for development over our desire to look good environmentally.

17. Any questions? Environment Portfolio Committee, Sept 2015