It's not about the money for small island states, it's about basic survival. This marks something of a shift in acceptance of what climate science has been saying since Bali two years ago. In 2009 there is no questioning the reality of the threats. And this may be one reason for the current rift in the G77. For countries like South Africa, which is experiencing a falling-out with poorer G77 states at COP15, it is about the money. While the politically correct language in this context is to talk of mitigation and adaptation together, the negotiations for South Africa seem to be about how to finance economic growth with new, cleaner technologies. That's mitigation, not adaptation.
The Climate Action Network seems to think that the climate finance negotiations are about funding adaptation, but I don't think the South African government sees it that way. Adaptation is about ensuring that communities can be flexible in response to climate-related stresses, but South Africa is asking for international funding without having a community-level resilience strategy in place.
One of the problems in the UNFCCC negotiations is that each country is treated as if it were a homogeneous entity. The reality is very different. South Africa, like many other countries, is a microcosm of the developed vs developing dichotomy, containing economic extremes within its borders.
Energy poverty is a serious concern, and it is a mistake to put too much emphasis on the idea that countries like South Africa should avoid following the trajectory of developed countries in increasing energy as they climb out of poverty. Yes, the carbon intensity of South Africa per capita should be kept down, but that really means that the rich in South Africa should change their energy patterns, not that the poor should be denied access to electricity. So just as developed and developing countries are discussing their "common but differentiated responsibilities" for past, present and future emissions, we should make the same distinction in South Africa.
South Africa treats access to water as a basic right (although the application of this principle is patchy), and energy should be seen the same way. During this past week, Eskom has pointed out that the mess of illegal electricity connections in informal settlements causes children to die every year, but there is no alternative being rolled out. For the sake of poverty reduction and improved equity, we need to find ways to improve safe access to energy, not just try to reduce emissions growth. Both need to be done urgently, and both depend on renewable energy sources.
Comments