26.02.2013 Views

April 2011 - Centre for Civil Society - University of KwaZulu-Natal

April 2011 - Centre for Civil Society - University of KwaZulu-Natal

April 2011 - Centre for Civil Society - University of KwaZulu-Natal

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Pambazuka News.<br />

South Africa prepares <strong>for</strong> ‘Conference <strong>of</strong> Polluters’<br />

Patrick Bond 27 January <strong>2011</strong><br />

At the past two United Nations Kyoto Protocol’s ‘Conference <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Parties’ (COPs) climate summits, Copenhagen in 2009 and Cancún in 2010,<br />

as well as at prior meetings such as Nairobi, how did South African<br />

leaders and negotiators per<strong>for</strong>m?<br />

Sadly, they regularly let down their constituents, their African<br />

colleagues as well as the global environment.<br />

Most embarrassingly, going <strong>for</strong>ward to the Durban COP 17 in November,<br />

the<br />

new Green Paper on climate under public debate this month promotes two<br />

dangerous strategies – nuclear energy and carbon trading – and concedes<br />

dramatic increases in CO2 emissions.<br />

South Africa is building two massive coal-fired plants at Kusile and<br />

Medupi (the world’s third and fourth largest), opening an anticipated<br />

<strong>for</strong>ty new coal mines in spite <strong>of</strong> scandalous local air and water<br />

pollution, and claiming that more ‘carbon space’ to pollute the air and<br />

thus threaten future generations is required <strong>for</strong> ‘development’.<br />

SA was not required to cut emissions in the first (1997-2012) stage <strong>of</strong><br />

the Kyoto Protocol. But when it comes to a potential second stage, which<br />

ideally would be negotiated in Durban, South Africa’s negotiators are<br />

joining a contradictory movement <strong>of</strong> emerging economic powers which<br />

both<br />

want to retain Kyoto’s North-South differentiation <strong>of</strong> responsibility to<br />

cut emissions, and to either gut Kyoto’s binding targets or establish<br />

complicated, fraud-ridden <strong>of</strong>fsets and carbon trades which would have the<br />

same effect.<br />

The 2006 Nairobi COP helped set the tone, because Pretoria’s minister <strong>of</strong><br />

environment and tourism at the time was Marthinus van Schalkwyk,<br />

<strong>for</strong>merly head <strong>of</strong> the New National Party. (He is today merely tourism<br />

minister.)<br />

A new Adaptation Fund was established in Nairobi, but its resources were<br />

reliant upon revenues from the controversial Clean Development<br />

Mechanism<br />

(CDM) carbon trading mechanism. Last week the European Union<br />

announced a<br />

ban on the main source <strong>of</strong> CDM credits, Chinese refrigeration gas<br />

emissions that are responsible <strong>for</strong> nearly two thirds <strong>of</strong> recent payments,<br />

because they incentivized production <strong>of</strong> more greenhouse gases.<br />

The CDM market is worth less than $8 billion/year at present, and Africa<br />

has received only around 2 percent, mostly <strong>for</strong> South African projects<br />

like the controversial Bisasar Road dump in Durban’s Clare Estate<br />

neighbourhood. Community activists led by the late Sajida Khan had<br />

demanded that Bisasar be shut but in 2002 the World Bank promised R100<br />

million in funding to convert methane from rotting rubbish into<br />

electricity, hence downplaying local health threats and environmental

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!