Global context

The WWF (2006) developed two indices to measure the impact of the “development” of human civilisation on the carrying capacity of the earth, the Ecological Footprint¹⁰ and the Living Planet Index (LPI). The Living Planet Index reflects the health of the planet’s ecosystems by measuring long-term trends in the Earth’s biological diversity. It tracks populations of 1 313 vertebrate species¹¹ globally, calculating separate indices for terrestrial, marine, and freshwater species before averaging trends across the three indices to create an aggregated index. Although vertebrates represent only a fraction of known species, it is assumed that trends in their populations are typical of biodiversity overall. The aggregated index serves as a monitor for the health of ecosystems (WWF 2006).

The Ecological Footprint tracks levels of human consumption and waste generation in terms of the area of biologically productive land and water needed to provide the ecological resources and services consumed by humankind¹². The Earth’s bio-capacity is calculated as the amount of biologically productive area that is available for use as cropland, pasture,

10 Defined as “...humanity’s demand on the biosphere in terms of the area of biologically productive land and sea required to provide the resources we use and to absorb our waste.” (WWF 2006, p.14)

11 Vertebrates include fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals

12 Ecological resources and services measured include; food, fibre, timber, land on which to build and land to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) released by burning fossil fuels (WWF 2006).

forest, and fishing - in essence the productive land and sea area that is available to meet the needs of living organisms on earth. The total supply of productive area or the bio-capacity of the earth was estimated at 11.2 billion global hectares in 2003 (WWF 2006).

In the 2006 Living Planet Report published by the WWF both these indices paint an ominous picture. Between 1970 and 2003, The Living Planet Index (LPI) fell by roughly 30 per cent¹³, while the Ecological Footprint has exceeded the Earth’s 11.2 billion global hectares¹⁴ bio-capacity since the 1980s, overshooting bio-bio-capacity¹⁵ by 25% by 2003 (refer to Figure 1) (WWF 2006). Hawken et al (1999) found similar indications.70% of the world’s coral reefs are dying, freshwater and marine ecosystems are disappearing at rates of 6 and 4% per annum respectively. For nearly three decades humankind has been creating waste from resources faster than nature can regenerate those resources and turn the waste back into useful compounds. Such overconsumption is only possible for short periods of time while there is sufficient natural capital available to draw down. Natural capital stocks are built up over millennia and the harvesting of resources at rates faster than their regeneration rates reduce the ability of the natural systems to regenerate and the surplus that can be drawn down sustainably shrinks even further. Essentially the present annual amount of resources consumed by human civilization took roughly a year and three months to be produced by the earth’s natural systems and processes and the waste generated annually will only be broken down over a year and three months (WWF 2006, p.14, Hawken et al 1999).

The impact of this over-usage is evident in the decline of biodiversity on earth as shown by the falling LPI. The rate of degradation has already reached a level unprecedented in human history and shows no sign of abating –our impact on the environment has increased threefold since 1961 and other life-forms on earth are struggling to survive due our overexploitation of the available bio-capacity (WWF 2006, p. 2).

The largest part of humankind’s ecological footprint is caused by the way in which it generates and uses energy. Climate-changing emissions caused by the combustion of fossil fuels for the generation of energy account for 48% of the total global ecological footprint of human civilisation (WWF 2006, p. 1). This is thus the area where drastic change is most urgently required.

13 Reflecting the reduction of the total population of vertebrates (excluding humans) by a third

14 Given current technology levels

15 Estimated at 11.2 billion global hectares in 2003

Figure 1 Global Ecological Footprint by Component 1961-2003 (WWF 2006, p.15)

James Leape (cited in WWF 2006, p.1) places the blame for humankind’s large ecological footprint at the door of the short-sighted development policies pursued by nations. He asserts that, “what we currently accept as ‘high development’

is a long way away from the world’s stated aim of sustainable development. As countries improve the wellbeing of their people, they are bypassing the goal of sustainability and...using far more resources than the planet can sustain.” If the world continues to strive for “development” at the cost of the natural environment, natural resources will become ever scarcer and poor countries will find it increasingly difficult to improve the livelihoods of their citizens while rich countries will struggle to sustain the levels of material prosperity that they have already achieved.

If humankind is to continue its attempts to improve the quality of life of all people on earth new ways of development that place much less strain on the natural environment will have to be found. Some scientists such as James Lovelock (cited in (Aitkenhead 2008) argue that irrevocable damage has already been caused and that catastrophic climate change can no longer be averted. This is due to the long-lasting nature of infrastructure that locks economies into specific paths of resource consumption (WWF 2006, p.3). To make future societies more sustainable the infrastructure created today needs to take environmental concerns into account (Bartelmus 1994, p.6). Figure 2 provides an indication of changes one can expect to see if current development paradigms are not altered to include environmental parameters.

“...global warming is now irreversible...nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics.”

(Lovelock cited in Aitkenhead 2008)

Figure 2 Stabilisation Levels and Probability Ranges for Temperature Increases (Stern 2006, p.v)

+

The Stern report (Stern 2006, p.iii) estimated that the total stock of greenhouse gasses¹⁶ would reach 550 ppm CO2e¹⁷ (double pre-industrial levels) by 2050 at the prevalent rate of emission growth. If greenhouse gas concentrations increase to such high levels temperature increases exceeding 2°C are highly likely¹⁸ with devastating implications for people and ecosystems (Stern 2006). When one considers that global average temperatures are now only about 5’C warmer than during the last ice age (Stern 2006) the implications of such an increase become disconcerting.

Figure 2 from the Stern report (2006, p.v) illustrates the range of possible impacts that can be expected at different levels of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The top panel shows the range of temperatures projected at greenhouse gas concentration levels between 400ppm and 750ppm CO2e. The solid horizontal lines indicate the 5 - 95% certainty range based on climate sensitivity estimates from the IPCC in 2001 and a Hadley Centre ensemble study. The vertical line indicates the mean of the 50th percentile point. The dashed lines show the 5 - 95% range based on recent studies. The bottom panel illustrates the range of impacts expected at different levels of warming due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations. The figure indicates that temperature rises above 4°C would significantly affect human life on earth with dire economic and social consequences. Greenhouse gas concentrations are approaching 400 ppmv CO2e (UNEP/GRID Arendal 2009, CO² now 2010) and if these are not moderated temperature increases are very likely, as shown in Figure 2.

The impacts of such increases are already becoming evident with the shrinking of the Atlantic polar ice cap during summer as is shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. In 2007 the IPCC found that observed changes in the earth’s climate and its effects already show in many natural systems that are exhibiting signs of being affected by regional climatic changes. It concludes that¹⁹ (IPCC 2007a, p.30)“...warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.”

16 For a description of how the greenhouse effect works please refer to the document entitled The Greenhouse Effect on the CD accompanying this thesis.

17 CO₂e refers to “Carbon Dioxide equivalent” is the metric measurement unit for greenhouse gas emissions. The global warming impact of all greenhouse gasses is measured in terms of equivalency to the impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) (Carbonpositive 2010b).

18 The Stern report (2006) estimates the probability of a more than 2ºC increase due to such high concentrations of greenhouse gasses at 77%-99%.

19 The research findings of the IPCC have recently been heavily criticised but the scope of this thesis does not allow for a critical scientific discussion of the findings of the panel. The assumption is that the findings of the IPCC and other reputable organisations such as the American National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science as well as the work by authors such as (Levinski 2001) and Lovelock is credible. For a list of authors contesting the anthropogenic causes of climate change see Jaworowski (2007) and the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (2009).

Figure

this thesis is on reducing per capita levels of resource consumption and footprint intensity by reducing the amount of electricity used in residential consumption. The technology for reducing these exists with solar water heating

viable alternative energy source that can supply

directly for water heating, reducing the need for fossil fuel generated electricity Visagie 2005).

20. An “Ecological Footprint” is a measure of “how much

activity requires to produce all the resources it consumes and to absorb the w

and resource management practices. The Ecological Footprint is usually measured in

global, an individual or country's Footprint includes land or sea from all over the world. Ecological Footprint is often referred to in short form as Footprint (not footprint)” (Global Footprint Network 2010).

production can be significantly reduced through energy efficiency measures, waste minimization, recycling and improved logistical arrangements

Figure 3 Artic Polar Ice-Cap 2003 (NASA 2003)

Figure 4 Artic Polar Ice Cap 1979 (NASA 2003)

have identified five intervention areas that could reverse the overshoot and resulting environmental degradation. These are:

reduced per capita levels of resource consumption;

productive area and increased bio-productivity per hectare should be targeted to achieve sustainable development objectives

this thesis is on reducing per capita levels of resource consumption and footprint intensity by reducing the amount of electricity used in residential consumption. The technology for

olar water heating serving as a prime example. SWH viable alternative energy source that can supply reliable, affordable and low carbon

, reducing the need for fossil fuel generated electricity

measure of “how much biologically productive land and water an individual, population or activity requires to produce all the resources it consumes and to absorb the waste it generates using prevailing technology and resource management practices. The Ecological Footprint is usually measured in global hectares

global, an individual or country's Footprint includes land or sea from all over the world. Ecological Footprint is often referred to in short form as Footprint (not footprint)” (Global Footprint Network 2010). The

production can be significantly reduced through energy efficiency measures, waste minimization, recycling and improved

five intervention areas that could mitigate and onmental degradation. These are: reduced er capita levels of resource consumption; reduced footprint per hectare. Each of to achieve sustainable development objectives, but the focus of this thesis is on reducing per capita levels of resource consumption and footprint intensity by reducing the amount of electricity used in residential consumption. The technology for me example. SWH presents a and low carbon energy , reducing the need for fossil fuel generated electricity (Prasad and

an individual, population or aste it generates using prevailing technology global hectares. Because trade is global, an individual or country's Footprint includes land or sea from all over the world. Ecological Footprint is often The footprint intensity of production can be significantly reduced through energy efficiency measures, waste minimization, recycling and improved

Aside from concerns about ecological overshoot, there are also other strategic justifications for a shift to renewable energy sources. Non-renewable energy sources are becoming scarcer and more expensive to extract due to rising demand. Early signs are appearing that the finite limits of resource availability are approaching. The most prominent example is oil and the pending oil production peak²¹ which serves as a stark reminder that fossil fuel resources are finite and exhaustible (Ivanhoe 1995, EIA 2009, Wakeford 2007). At some point the amount of resources that can be extracted economically from the earth will reach a maximum level at which point growth in demand will start to exceed growth in supply and prices will spiral upwards. Jeremy Wakeford, chair of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) in South Africa states that coal production in South Africa could peak within a decade, leading to strong increases in the cost of generating electricity from coal (Davie 2010). From an energy security perspective countries, including South Africa, have to find alternative sources of energy.

Over the past two decades the institutional foundations have been laid for an alternative development paradigm through national commitments to emission reductions (NRDC 2010) and international accords and agreements such as the Kyoto protocol signed in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997. 184 countries ratified the Kyoto protocol which committed developed nations to set emission reduction targets while encouraging developing nations to attempt emission reductions wherever possible (UNFCC 2010). The protocol expires in 2012 and a successor agreement was to be negotiated during December 2009 at the 15^th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 15) in Copenhagen²² (UNFCC 2009).

The ultimate goal of the Copenhagen conference was that it should “culminate in an ambitious and effective international response to climate change” (UNFCC 2009).

According to Winkler (2010) and Dimitrov (2010) the conference seems to have failed that vision with most countries only conceding to voluntary emission reductions in a regime with less enforcement power than the existing Kyoto protocol. Seemingly the political and economic conditions were not amendable for the development of a breakthrough agreement (Winkler 2010). An official negotiation text for further negotiations is to be drawn up and completed during 2010. The Kyoto protocol remains nominally active but countries can now choose more or less freely whether to implement its stipulations or not and the EU, once the leading party in its implementation has indicated that it would effectively abandon the protocol (Winkler 2010, Dimitrov 2010).

At the COP 15 negotiations South Africa, one of the highest emitters of CO2 per capita (SEA 2009, p.2), committed itself to a 42% reduction in emissions from a business as usual level (The Presidency 2009a, NRDC 2010). If the country is to achieve this goal a range of interventions will have to be instituted including the development of energy efficiency strategies and renewable energies such as solar water heating. This will be necessary as the country currently sources 90% of its electricity from coal-fired power stations (Winkler 2006). These power plants are large sources of CO2 emissions (SEA 2009). In order to fulfil its international objectives the country will thus have to reduce its dependency on electricity

21 For a slightly more comprehensive discussion of oil peak theory and the relevance thereof please refer to the document entitled Oil Peak Production on the CD accompanying this thesis

22 For a slightly more detailed overview of the problems of the Kyoto Protocol and the COP 15 negotiations please refer to the document entitled The Kyoto Protocol and COP 15 on the attached CD.

generated in coal powered power plants. Solar water heating can play a role in such a strategy by substituting for the use of electrical geysers or kettles to heat water for bathing and cleaning.