BY HYLTON TAYLOR

The environment is a topic which seems to bring out a number of emotions in most people. Because of this it is usually difficult to obtain any “facts” which haven’t been manipulated in favour of one side or the other, and so my facts come with a disclaimer!

As an engineer I find it surprising and scary that there are people who have such strong opinions of a subject (and are occasionally willing to get into violent protests) of which they have very little understanding, and have not bothered to actually read up both sides of the story. Yet, I am in awe of these people – imagine been so passionate about something in your life!

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

And so, I am not what people of the other side would term a “tree-hugger”. I remain doubtful about the “facts” behind the global warming argument yet I do believe in the principle for its sound logic, but the rate remains dubious in my mind. The same environmentalists were telling us in the 80’s and 90’s that industrial and household appliances using CFC’s were causing the hole in the ozone layer.

The environmentalist were right about those CFC’s, but it turns out that during the famous volcano / mountain eruption of Mount St. Helens in the USA duringthe 1980’s more natural CFC’s were released into the atmosphere than man has ever made or ever will make. It turns out that it was a brilliant marketing campaign to sell new household appliances, which was driven by environmentalists who hadn’t bothered to read up both sides of the story. I’m sure the various manufacturers were pleased.

The Gulf of Mexico

And so I send this story in a completely different direction and towards the Gulf of Mexico, where there is the small issue of an oil platform (Deepwater Horizon) which blew up on 20 April, killing and injuring numerous workers, and the oil well which continues to spew crude oil into the sea. You know, the one where they keep putting funny caps on which don’t always seem to fit because they keep fitting them, to capture oil because the “blow-out preventer” failed (sounds like a contraption made by Dr Evil in an Austin Powers movie..?).

Apparently it is big news in the south of the USA, but I haven’t really heard anyone in SA talking about it. In fact there are approximately 44 500 personnel, more than 6 563 vessels and 113 aircraft engaged in the surface oil clean up operations.

Unlike global warming this is an environmental disaster that one can see, and even if the numbers are been manipulated, the dead animals and oil washing onto shores et cetera, cannot be hidden. Such is the visual aid, even non-“tree-huggers” can see there is a problem here.

Estimates are that the well continues to leak up to approximately 50 000 oil barrels per day. With the new containment cap which is currently been commissioned, most of the 50 000 barrels will be captured. Up until now though there has been one oil collecting and gas flaring (burning) ship with a capacity of approximately 17 000 barrels per day, and a second oil and gas flaring ship with a capacity of 8 000 barrels per day. A third oil and gas collection ship, which will collect the balancing 25 000 barrels, will be used once the new containment cap has been commissioned, assuming it works. This does however still leave the question of where the 25 000 barrels was going, and the rest of the oil before that.

The various oils in crude oil have different densities, some being heavier than water. So whilst you see some oil washing up on the shore and being cleaned by crews or skimmed by the skimming ships on the surface, just remember there is oil which remains below the surface coating the sea floor, killing off coral and sea life which cannot be cleaned, let alone reached by humans. And what is really scary is that they are still finding oil from the Exxon Valdez incident 20 years ago, which is just as toxic to the environment today as it was then.

Which begs the question, “Why haven’t they fixed it yet?” Unfortunately at 2km below the surface, humans would be crushed and only robotic machinery can be used, which makes things tricky. Typically, repair technology only catches up years after the technology to do something becomes available, such as to pump oil from 2km below the sea surface. Did you ever hear about the rescue plan for the Apollo space missions? That’s because there wasn’t one.

As an engineer it brings my engineering philosophy into question though. I’ve always believed that with enough time and money, anything is possible. But here is a problem where all the money in the world has not provided an adequate solution (numbers vary from $2 – $50 billion!). Containment caps, pumping concrete and clay, skimming ships, drilling relief wells, centrifuges, Kevin Costner’s centrifuges (hey, desperate times call for desperate measures…), and even suggestions – apparently from the Russians – to  use a nuclear bomb to shut the hole….

But here is a question. What is the volume of an oil barrel? Surprisingly, most people don’t know! Thankfully however (and thank you Wikipedia), an oil barrel is smaller than the typical barrel you see in SA. The typical barrel seen in SA is a 55 US gallon barrel, which is approximately 210 litres. An oil barrel however, is a 42 US gallon barrel, which is 159 litres.

This equates 50 000 barrels to 8 million litres per day. With that oil, approximately 3.5m litres of petrol could have been made, enough to fuel my car for 50m km. Of course been a Citro?n it would have broken down after 20km, but that is another story. And that 2^nd ship is incinerating 1.25 m litres – enough to fuel my car for 8m km! Imagine that ship’s carbon footprint!

So is this as bad as the Exxon Valdez incident? It turns out that the Exxon Valdez incident was not the worst oil spill in history, although it is considered the biggest environmental disaster owing to its proximity to wildlife and an environmentally sensitive area. Exxon Valdez is only the 14^th worst oil spill at a total of 750 000 barrels. The Lakeview Gusher incident in 1910 remains by far the worst incident at 9m barrels, with the Gulf War intentional oil spill by Iraqi forces lying in 2^nd place at somewhere between 2 – 8m barrels. The Gulf of Mexico (Deepwater Horizon) incident as at 8 July – somewhere between 2.6 – 4.4m barrels, putting it in 3^rd position in the all time worst oil spills, and making it far worse then the Exxon Valdez incident.

So why are they getting oil from 2km below the sea surface? Because we need it, and at $75 per barrel it is financially viable. Don’t be surprised if we hear about another one of these incidents again in the future…

Coffee Time

So what does this have to do with coffee time? Probably not that much because we are too busy talking about our carbon footprint because some environmentalist who didn’t read up on his “facts” told some B-list “celebrity” to tell us about global warming and we listened.

Except for the fact that the artificial sweetener you just put in your coffee – because you are avoiding sugar due the same B-list “celebrity” suddenly declaring sugar was no longer natural (it boggles the mind) – is probably made from a chemical derived from a crude oil product, unless it is made from Xylitol.

So next time you’re out for coffee start talking about the Deepwater Horizon and how you are going to reduce your oil footprint. You don’t need a B-list “celebrity” to explain someone’s special mathematical model. You can see the pictures of the dead animals, the clean up crews on the beaches, and the skimming ships. You can even watch the live video feed showing the oil gushing out of the oil well if you want to.

Take care of that oil footprint and you will find that carbon footprint will take care of itself…

Hylton Taylor is a South African engineer working in Kwa-Zulu Natal, and a first time Soapbox contributor

President Zuma’s address to the United Nations General Assembly last week included some strong words on climate change, but as with the cabinet statement released two weeks earlier, it did not go far enough.  The President reiterated the now well known position that the impacts of climate change will be devastating for Africa, and that it “will severely undermine development and poverty eradication efforts”.

He also made it clear that developed countries bear the greatest responsibility for climate change and its impact.

In political speak the President was on message. He did not deviate from the script that the former Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, had written during his tenure as South Africa’s climate change czar. But considering that the Copenhagen climate change negotiations are now less than 70 days away and that the likelihood of an agreement that will do justice to what the science requires is fading by the day, the President’s comments were not nearly strong enough.

We know that South Africa will not accept binding emission reduction targets. That has always been the case, and is a position shared by the other major emerging economies. But where is the talk from President Zuma on what South Africa is prepared to do? He said to the UN that “our goal should be to significantly reduce emissions across the globe”. Presumably in this case he meant the collective goal of all countries.  His comments would have been so much stronger if he had said that South Africa was prepared to take mitigation action.

Nationally appropriate mitigation action by developing countries was a principle that South Africa supported in the Bali Action Plan, an outcome of the 13th Conference of the Parties in 2007.

The Long Term Mitigation Scenarios for South Africa already outline the extent to which our country can grow its emissions before levelling off and then finally making absolute reductions. Working out how to achieve this trajectory still needs much work, a matter which the government is admittedly showing little urgency on. Nevertheless, South Africa will in time take mitigation action that is appropriate for our economy, so the President should have made this clear to the UN and, more importantly, to the developed countries that are dragging their feet on their own commitments.

Having not explicitly said that South Africa will play its role in stabilising the world’s climate (admittedly in time), the focus of President Zuma’s comments appeared to be on obtaining transfer payments for the developing world from the developed world. He said that Copenhagen needed to deliver an agreement on new, additional, sustainable and predictable financing for adaptation. This is important, particularly for the least developed countries of the world, but it makes South Africa appear blameless for climate change. While our overall contribution to global historical emissions is small, let it be not forgotten that South Africa’s emissions per capita are only slightly lower than the average for industrialized countries, but are well above the developing country average. The trajectory is upwards and our reliance on coal is growing not dwindling.

No doubt the irony would not have been lost on the G8 countries listening to the contribution by President Zuma.

President Zuma lost an opportunity to be seen as a global leader on this issue. He should have been one the hand harder on what the developed countries needed to do the reduce their emissions, while on the other hand making it clear that South Africa would actively play its role.

He should have reminded the developed world that the science makes it clear that they need to cut their emissions by 25% to 40% by 2020, and by 80% by 2050. He should have reiterated the need to keep the global average temperature rise below 2 degrees celcius. Beyond that temperature rise various climate tipping points come into play, and the likelihood of climatic disaster grows exponentially.

Two days after President Zuma addressed the UN General Assembly the Climate Change Scientific Compendium for 2009 was released. This review of over 400 scientific articles on climate change concluded that the rise in global temperatures could be even higher than was previously expected. Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary General of the UN, said that the report was a call to action. “The time for hesitation is over,” he said.

Ban Ki-Moon would have spent several days before listening to Heads of State talking about climate change, among other things, in the General Assembly. His comments could be aptly applied to President Zuma’s speech, for Zuma truly did hesitate.

Gareth Morgan is the shadow Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs.

The negotiations that will plot the world’s new climate change framework are less than six months away. But you wouldn’t think so if you listened to President Jacob Zuma’s first “State of the Nation” address. This subject matter, on the mind of every President or Prime Minister worth his or her salt, did not feature in the President’s programme of action.

The closest he came to the topic was acknowledging that South Africa was a dry country and that it required urgent action “to mitigate adverse environmental changes and to ensure the provision of water to citizens.” He also said that the government would work to improve energy efficiency and the uptake of renewable energy. But where was the detail and how do these programmes relate to rejuvenating an economy that is in recession?

If this was an attempt by the President to introduce climate change into his address, he could have at least mentioned this human-induced phenomenon that has the potential to wreak disaster on Southern Africa by its name.

Climate change is not going to go away, hence President Zuma would do well not to cast himself as a denialist. . South Africa cannot afford to wait in responding to the challenges of climate change. The science suggests that Southern Africa is one of the most vulnerable regions in the world. Localised decreased run-off from rainfall, increased frequency of droughts and the change in the ranges of biodiversity all have the potential to undermine our economic growth and undermine this country’s attempts at poverty alleviation.

Much of the warming that will occur is already locked into the system meaning that adaptation to climate change is the initial priority. However, South Africa has one of the highest per capita CO2 emissions ratios in the world and therefore mitigation action is a necessity if South Africa is to be a responsible global player in stabilising the world’s climate and keeping global warming to no more than 2 °C.

There will be no binding emission reduction targets for South Africa at the Copenhagen Climate negotiations, but the developed world will expect some mitigation action from the likes of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and India. But what does President Zuma have to say about this?

It is not as if the previous administration did nothing to prepare South Africa for the response to the climate change challenge. The Long Term Mitigation Scenarios for South Africa clearly outline the various paths that South Africa can choose to follow. We know the dangers of the business-as-usual scenario and we understand what is required by science. The previous Minister of Environmental Affairs also started a gases inventory project and the biggest emitters are now encouraged to voluntarily report on their emissions. And the Climate Change Summit began the process of outlining the action steps that will need to be taken by various stakeholders in the economy and in government.  We have to move to the introduction of climate change legislation at some point in the term of this government.

President Zuma has inherited an economy that is in recession and it is his task to lead us out of it in way that makes us more resilient and better prepared to capitalize on long term growth. The response to climate change is an economic response and therefore it must be fully integrated into economic policy.

Like many other governments in the world it is clear that the South African government aims to stimulate demand by spending. Notwithstanding the likelihood that tax revenues will fall in the immediate period going forward and that government needs to act responsibly, President Zuma should consider spending in areas that will stimulate new green industries. Projects that promote energy efficiency appear to be on the agenda. But large capital projects like concentrated solar thermal deserve thorough consideration as well.

When investing in rural infrastructure and social relief programmes, President Zuma needs to make it clear that such spending will take into account the need to adapt to climate change. The promotion of small-scale agriculture, improving access to water, and “climate proofing” human settlements all need to take into account that the climate of today will not necessarily be the climate of tomorrow.

President Zuma also needs to take us into his confidence about how his government intends to approach the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen. We face the prospect of a new lead Minister, Buyelwa Sonjica, who has no history in these negotiations and is unlikely to understand the dynamics. I have been told by one senior civil servant of a G8 country that there is considerable consternation that Minister Van Schalkwyk will not be at Copenhagen. Despite his numerous faults, Van Schalkwyk knew the negotiation process well. He had established a rapport with other Ministers and he was regarded by many G8 countries as a bridge between the developed economies and the major emerging economies.

Minister Sonjica deserves her chance to show what she can do, and she has no doubt inherited the majority of the negotiating team that Van Schalkwyk had at his disposal, but I cannot shake the feeling that Sonjica’s explicit focus as Minister is going to be on water. It is obviously not a case of “either or”. Climate change and water are both important.

Will South Africa push the developed world to take up ambitious emission reduction targets? We don’t know because President Zuma does not think climate change is an important topic for State of the Nation address.

It is now the responsibility of Parliament to hold President Zuma to account for what he has said and what he has not said. I will certainly be asking questions on what his government will do tackle climate change. I hope other MPs will join me.

Gareth Morgan is the DA shadow Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs.