None of this means that we can ignore the reality of anthropomorphic induced climate change and this is where Ivo Vegter is dead wrong.

Let’s go back to the question of whether anthropomorphic induced climate change is supported. The world’s climate systems are incredibly complex, full of anomalies and hard even for the best scientists to understand. We do know some things about it though. Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by the same amount of the volume of fossil fuels burnt since the industrial revolution. This results in an imbalance between the amount of energy entering and leaving the atmosphere which means that the atmosphere and the earth’s oceans (working as a heat sink) are heating up. We are already seeing the effects of this: the past decade was the warmest on record, ice caps around the world are losing mass and we have experienced unusual patterns of storms, drought and flooding.

Certainly, there are many anomalies and a good amount of uncertainty and so one is easily able to pick out anomalous data points, pre-select start and end points of data time series and ignore the weight of evidence presented. The holes one can pick in the data when science informs policy, are as easy as, err, clubbing baby seals to death. Science does not give clear guidance to policy makers because there is always uncertainty and scientists do not generally know how to guide policy makers but one should know this: almost no scientists and no authoritative scientific societies doubt that anthropomorphic induced climate change is real issue. And no, this is not a global scientific plot. The scientific method does not work like that.

Of course there have been huge swings in the global climate before. The last big ice age was 12,000 years ago and previous mass die-offs marking the end of previous periods in the earth’s history have naturally occurring changes in the climate as a plausible reason. However, the roughly seven billion people living on the earth are heavily invested in keeping the climate as it is right now for as long as possible. Unlike in even quite recent times, we can’t all just migrate from one place to another. There are far too many of us and we now have countries with borders, cities and established food supply systems. All these things have been won with considerable hardship, pain and suffering. Even small scale migration is often accompanied by war and strife.

The current efforts at restricting further warming are directed at keeping temperatures below two degrees Celsius above the temperature during pre-industrial times. Why two degrees? It appears to be a result of the interaction between science and policy. Global warming caused by human CO2 emissions is based on accepted science but the reason to do something about it is not strictly scientific but based on an understanding of probability or risk. Very few people fully understand how probability works and how, with incomplete information, it guides decision-making. The key take-away here is not to seek to calculate risks or probabilities but to determine the magnitude of the potential risk to society and to do this by comparing benefits of each potential outcome, rather than the probability of any single outcome. Think of the insurance industry: we all take insurance out against low probability risks, if these risks entail dramatic costs.

So, while there are uncertainties in climate science, the balance of probabilities strongly indicate that we should do something about it. The argument is this: CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time so it easier to prevent runaway greenhouse gasses now than to wait until that catastrophic outcome is upon us. But, for the purpose of the argument and as Ivo Vegter seems to suggest – what if climate science is wrong? It is far easier to repeal environmental regulations than reverse the forces that drive climate change.

Why more is not done or why humanity does not change its habits in the face of the risks involved is an interesting question. As one study showed, humanity does not really care about future generations. As a species, we are not very good at delayed gratification. Technically speaking, we have a steep inter-generational discount rate. It is not only future generations that suffer, we all tend to save too little for our own old age possibly hoping that something will emerge to save us from our current folly.

It is true that the Lima talks failed to live up to their expectations, but Lima is but one more step in the direction of de-carbonising the world’s energy sector. It is a mistake to think that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), whose supreme body, the Conference of the Parties (COP) that met in Lima is the only mechanism that drives this de-carbonisation. The real progress is happening elsewhere such as in the bilateral treaty signed last month between the US and China. It commits the US to emit 28% less CO2 in 2025 than it did in 2005 and commits China to reach peak emissions by 2030.

This is important because China could once be relied upon by those opposing any measures to combat climate change. No longer.

China is firmly on board and if the leading economies are all heading in the same direction, then there is likely to be efforts to drag in laggard countries in so that greenhouse emissions or current economic advantages are not merely exported. It is not necessarily a concern for future generations that drives this process. Carbon dioxide emissions are also a proxy for the current problem of simple air pollution. China has to change course because its cities are choking under clouds of heavily pollution right now.

We can expect to see increased moves towards a carbon “rules of origin” where products are identified by the carbon-dioxide intensity of the countries in which the products were manufactured. In the absence of carbon off-sets or other accepted carbon pricing mechanisms being included in the price of the product, destination countries will simply levy the tax on the product themselves. There is going to be more teeth to enforce the climate change agenda and they will become progressively sharper.

We should not be complacent about sorting our energy systems and making them less carbon intense. The recent drop in oil prices does not mean that oil is suddenly abundant. An end of season sale does not mean a sustained new price point. An interesting chart here shows the breakeven point for most of the global oil companies. The current drop-off in the oil price can’t last. There is an opportunity in the current slump though. Maria van de Hoeven, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), says that the respite from the drop in oil prices gives scope to make hard decisions such as eliminating fossil fuel subsidies which in 2013 amounted to $550 billion. She also suggests that now is a good time to introduce carbon pricing, taxes or low-carbon mandates, to encourage more efficient use of energy and promote low-carbon energy sources. She goes further to suggest that member countries raise taxes on transport fuels to help finance clean energy research, development and deployment. What absolutely needs to be avoided is to become complacent and once again increase dependency on fossil fuels.

It is unclear where Ivo Vegter picks up on the desperation in renewable energy circles. The IEA suggests healthy growth even with current energy policies. Many others say that the IEA’s projections are far too conservative and that renewables will become a central part of the global energy system. There is much to support this view. Steve Sawyer, the CEO of the Global Wind Energy Council says that wind power has become the least-cost option when adding new capacity to the grid in an increasing number of markets, and adds that prices continue to fall.

South Africa is in a tricky position. Our electricity system is mostly coal-based and measured against Gross National Product, South Africa is one of the most carbon intense economies in the world. As it turns out though, the way that Eskom has been run, it is likely that South Africa already reached its peak emissions in 2008. This is not just as a result of supply constraints but also the huge increases in tariffs in recent years. The tariff trajectory, as we see now, is relentlessly upwards and cheaper coal will not change any of this. We will just have to use less electricity for a given output. There is no way around it.

Any new generating capacity, including Medupi and Kusile, will, in any event, be less carbon intense than what we have now. It may be opportunistic but it makes sense to fall in line and secure whatever funding that might become available for reducing our carbon-dioxide emissions. In an unplanned and chaotic way, South Africa is doing just this all by itself.

It is a mistake to point to the failings of the COP conference in Lima and to then suggest the whole climate change agenda is now somehow moribund. The agenda is been driven forward and relentlessly so in other areas, such as bilateral agreements between leading countries, and it is based on the hard-headed calculus of national and economic self-interest. Just as the United Nations’ Blue Helmets do not constitute the sum total of peace keeping in the world, the UNFCCC does not represent the only effort at combating climate change. We need to remember that. DM