<figure>
 <img decoding="async" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292578/original/file-20190916-19030-1c91vdb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip">
 <figcaption>
 Power station in South Africa.
 Therina Groenewald/Shutterstock
 </figcaption>
 </figure>

By <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mark-new-189846">Mark New</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-cape-town-691">University of Cape Town</a>

<figure class="align-left ">
 <img decoding="async" alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=600&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=600&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=600&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=754&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=754&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=754&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
 <figcaption>
 
 <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a>
 </figcaption>
 </figure>

<a href="https://theconversation.com/nz/topics/climate-explained-74664">Climate Explained</a> is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change. 

If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz

<blockquote>
How much climate change is natural? How much is man made?
</blockquote>

As someone who has been working on climate change detection and its causes for over 20 years I was both surprised and not surprised that I was asked to write on this topic by The Conversation. For <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99">nearly all</a> climate scientists, the case is proven that humans are the overwhelming cause of the long-term changes in the climate that we are observing. And that this case should be closed.

Despite this, climate denialists continue to receive <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg">prominence</a> in some media which can lead people into thinking that man-made climate change is still in question. So it’s worth going back over the science to remind ourselves just how much has already been established.

Successive reports by the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> – mandated by the United Nations to assess scientific evidence on climate change – have evaluated the causes of climate change. The most recent <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/">special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees</a> confirms that the observed changes in global and regional climate over the last 50 or so years are almost entirely due to human influence on the climate system and not due to natural causes.

<h2>What is climate change?</h2>

First we should perhaps ask what we mean by climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary">defines climate change as</a>:

<blockquote>
a change in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer.
</blockquote>

The causes of climate change can be any combination of:

<ul>
<li>Internal variability in the climate system, <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/23552/chapter/5">when various</a> components of the climate system – like the atmosphere and ocean – vary on their own to cause fluctuations in climatic conditions, such as temperature or rainfall. These internally-driven changes generally happen over decades or longer; shorter variations such as those related to El Niño fall in the bracket of climate variability, not climate change.</li>
<li>Natural external causes such as increases or decreases in volcanic activity or solar radiation. For example, every 11 years or so, the Sun’s magnetic field <a href="https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/solar-cycles/en/">completely flips</a> and this can cause small fluctuations in global temperature, up to about 0.2 degrees. On longer time scales – tens to hundreds of millions of years – geological processes can drive changes in the climate, due to shifting continents and mountain building. </li>
<li>Human influence through greenhouse gases (gases that trap heat in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide and methane), other particles released into the air (which absorb or reflect sunlight such as soot and aerosols) and land-use change (which affects how much sunlight is absorbed on land surfaces and also how much carbon dioxide and methane is absorbed and released by vegetation and soils).</li>
</ul>

<h2>What changes have been detected?</h2>

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/">recent report</a> showed that, on average, the global surface air temperature has risen by 1°C since the beginning of significant industrialisation (which roughly started in the 1850s). And it is increasing at ever faster rates, currently 0.2°C per decade, because the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have themselves been increasing ever faster. 

The oceans are warming as well. In fact, <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/">about</a> 90% of the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases is being absorbed by the oceans.

A warmer atmosphere and oceans are causing dramatic changes, including <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/arctic-sea-ice-greenland-melt">steep decreases in Arctic summer sea ice</a> which is profoundly impacting arctic marine ecosystems, increasing sea level rise which is inundating low lying coastal areas such as Pacific island atolls, and an <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180321130859.htm">increasing frequency of many climate extremes</a> such as drought and heavy rain, as well as disasters where climate is an important driver, such as wildfire, flooding and landslides.

Multiple <a href="https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/3">lines of evidence</a>, using different methods, show that <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/">human influence is the only plausible explanation</a> for the patterns and magnitude of changes that have been detected. 

This human influence is largely due to our activities that release greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, as well sunlight absorbing soot. The <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions">main sources of these warming gases and particles</a> are fossil fuel burning, cement production, land cover change (especially deforestation) and agriculture.

<h2>Weather attribution</h2>

Most of us will struggle to pick up slow changes in the climate. We feel climate change largely through how it affects weather from day-to-day, season-to-season and year-to-year.

The weather we experience arises from dynamic processes in the atmosphere, and interactions between the atmosphere, the oceans and the land surface. Human influence on the broader climate system acts on these processes so that the weather today is different in many ways from how it would have been. 

One way we can more clearly see climate change is by looking at severe weather events. A branch of climate science, called extreme event or weather attribution, looks at memorable weather events and estimates the extent of human influence on the severity of these events. It <a href="https://www.worldweatherattribution.org">uses weather models</a> run with and without measured greenhouse gases to estimate how individual weather events would have been different in a world without climate change.

<a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world">As of early 2019</a>, nearly 70% of weather events that have been assessed in this way were shown to have had their likelihood and/or magnitude increased by human influence on climate. In a world without global warming, these events would have been less severe. Some 10% of the studies showed a reduction in likelihood, while for the remaining 20% global warming has not had a discernible effect. For example, <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae9f9">one study showed</a> that human influence on climate had increased the likelihood of the 2015-2018 drought that afflicted Cape Town in South Africa by a factor of three.

<h2>Adapting to a changing climate</h2>

Weather extremes underlie many of the hazards that damage society and the natural environment we depend upon. As global warming has progressed, so have the frequency and intensity of these hazards, and the damage they cause.

Minimising the impacts of these hazards, and having mechanisms in place to recover quickly from the impacts, is the aim of climate adaptation, as <a href="https://gca.org/global-commission-on-adaptation/home">recently reported by the Global Commission on Adaptation</a>.

As the Commission explains, investing in adaptation makes sense from economic, social and ethical perspectives. And as we know that climate change is caused by humans, society cannot use “lack of evidence” on its cause as an excuse for inaction any more.

<hr>

<figure class="align-right ">
 <img decoding="async" alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290123/original/file-20190829-106524-1w6rzla.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/290123/original/file-20190829-106524-1w6rzla.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=446&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290123/original/file-20190829-106524-1w6rzla.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=446&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290123/original/file-20190829-106524-1w6rzla.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=600&amp;h=446&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290123/original/file-20190829-106524-1w6rzla.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=560&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290123/original/file-20190829-106524-1w6rzla.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=30&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=560&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/290123/original/file-20190829-106524-1w6rzla.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=15&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;h=560&amp;fit=crop&amp;dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
 <figcaption>
 
 
 </figcaption>
 </figure>

This article is part of <a href="https://www.cjr.org/covering_climate_now/covering-climate-partnerships.php/">The Covering Climate Now</a> series
 This is a concerted effort among news organisations to put the climate crisis at the forefront of our coverage. This article is published under a Creative Commons license and can be reproduced for free – just hit the “Republish this article” button on the page to copy the full HTML coding. The Conversation also runs Imagine, a newsletter in which academics explore how the world can rise to the challenge of climate change. <a href="https://theconversation.com/imagine-newsletter-researchers-think-of-a-world-with-climate-action-113443?utm_source=TCUK&amp;utm_medium=linkback&amp;utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&amp;utm_content=CoveringClimateNow">Sign up here</a>.<img decoding="async" loading="lazy" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123604/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important">

<hr>

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mark-new-189846">Mark New</a>, Director, African Climate and Development Initiative, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-cape-town-691">University of Cape Town</a>

This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-how-much-of-climate-change-is-natural-how-much-is-man-made-123604">original article</a>.

Climate explained: how much of climate change is natural? How much is man-made?

<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 730px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=6015542404001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
The third edition of the one planet summit took place in Nairobi, engaging both the public and private players on how to curb global warming. But for this to be realized, financing is a necessity for low- carbon, resilient infrastructure and services for African Cities. CNBC Africa caught up with Hans Peter Lankes, Vice President of Economics and Private Sector Development, IFC for more on this.

IFC’s Hans Peter Lankes talks on financing low-carbon infrastructure in Africa

<figure><img decoding="async" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221950/original/file-20180606-137301-bcluaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="File 20180606 137301 bcluaq.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1" /><figcaption>It would be in Africa’s best interests to limit a rise in global temperature. 
Shutterstock</figcaption></figure>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/shingirai-nangombe-485487">Shingirai Nangombe</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/chinese-academy-of-sciences-857">Chinese Academy of Sciences</a>
At the end of the century, if <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf">carbon emissions aren’t reduced faster</a>, the global temperature is likely to be 2.6°C to 4.8°C higher than it was in 1986–2005. Africa could be even hotter than that, to the tune of between <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415386.002">3℃ and 6℃</a>.
If the world doesn’t make a bigger effort to cut emissions than it does now, global warming might have a severe effect <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf">on sub-tropical Africa</a>.
Our <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0145-6">research</a> has found that for Africa, it would make an important difference to limit a rise in global temperature to 1.5°C. That limit would shrink the likelihood of extreme climate events like heatwaves. And that would be good for societies and economies.
A global mean temperature of 2℃ above pre-industrial levels has been under discussion for years as a threshold for <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.457">danger</a>. Many countries already experiencing extreme climate events have raised concerns, though, that a 2℃ target is insufficient to shield them from <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2572">these extremes</a>.
These countries welcomed the 2015 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2939">Paris Agreement</a> on efforts to confine global warming and reduce risks of climate change in the future.
Africa is a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415386.002">climate change hotspot</a>. But there has been little research on how much difference a lower temperature target would make.
To fill this gap, we explored potential benefits for Africa from limiting global warming to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0145-6">1.5°C compared to 2℃</a>. We used a model that enabled us to simulate how heat and hydrological extremes might change in Africa under stabilised 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios. We focused on the likelihood of seeing a repeat of record-breaking seasons that have already happened.
We found that keeping global warming to 1.5°C could significantly decrease the frequency of extreme climate events across the continent. In particular, the probability of events like the southern African hot December–February <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0145-6">1991/1992</a> and the heatwave in North Africa in <a href="http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1074_en.pdf">December–February 2009/2010</a> would be a lot lower.
<h2>Severe high temperatures</h2>
Over the past decade, Africa has recorded <a href="http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1167_en.pdf">severe high temperatures</a>.
It was particularly hot in North Africa between <a href="http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1074_en.pdf">December 2009 and April 2010</a>. The region observed <a href="https://go.nature.com/2Jngrm0">new records</a> of 47.6℃ for Faya-Largeau in Chad, 48.2℃ for Bilma in Niger and 49.6℃ for Dongola in Sudan in 2010. In 2015 Egypt’s Luxor reached 48.4℃ and South Africa’s Vredendal observed a record <a href="http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1167_en.pdf">high of 47.6℃</a>.
We established that if global warming were to be limited to 1.5℃ instead of 2℃, the chances of extreme heat events in Africa might be reduced. Specifically, the likelihood of annual high temperatures that exceed the 2015 record is estimated to be 100% under 2℃ level, but 91% under 1.5℃ levels.
Under a 2℃ scenario, we projected that there is a 30% chance of occurrence for extreme high temperatures similar to that of 2009/2010 in North Africa. But if temperatures were kept at a projected 1.5℃, there would be only an 11% chance of such an extreme occurring.
<h2>Flooding and droughts</h2>
In February 2000, there was a <a href="https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0434%282004%29019%3C0789%3ATCEAIU%3E2.0.CO%3B2">tropical cyclone</a> that brought <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0145-6">unusually high rainfall</a> to southeast Africa and as far west as Namibia. It was also a year when Namibia experienced its wettest summer <a href="https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0434%282004%29019%3C0789%3ATCEAIU%3E2.0.CO%3B2">since 1976</a>. It resulted in devastating floods and <a href="https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0434%282004%29019%3C0789%3ATCEAIU%3E2.0.CO%3B2">loss of life</a>.
Global climate model simulations in our study estimated that similar extreme events in this region will be rare under low global warming scenarios in the future, with slight difference in occurrence between 1.5℃ and 2℃ warming levels. But in general, global climate models have been known to draw differing results in terms of the direction of future precipitation. That’s why our confidence levels are higher for temperature projections than <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf">precipitation projections</a>.
Almost all subsistence farmers in Africa who practise rain-fed agriculture are affected by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/085004">natural climate variability</a>. Increased frequency and severity of droughts is projected in the 21st century over most of the continent <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415386.002">because of climate change</a>.
Using rainfall deficits and high temperatures as drought indicators, we explored the likelihood of droughts similar to the 1991/1992 one in southern Africa under <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0145-6">low warming scenarios</a>. We found that, even though the rainfall would be similar in both the scenarios, the high temperatures might increase the probability of such droughts.
<h2>Benefits of a low-warming world</h2>
Our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0145-6">study</a> projects that limiting global warming to 1.5℃ instead of 2℃ would have considerable paybacks for Africa. In particular, extreme heat events like the ones in 2015 and 2009/2010 might be reduced by 10% and 20% respectively under 1.5℃ of global warming level compared to under 2℃ level.
Temperatures as high as those in the December–February 1991/1992 southern African drought are estimated to be 25% less likely under 1.5℃ of global warming level compared to under 2℃ level.
<img decoding="async" loading="lazy" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97098/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />So, continued efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C may offer considerable benefits to Africa in terms of reduced occurrence of heat extremes.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/shingirai-nangombe-485487">Shingirai Nangombe</a>, Doctor of Philosophy, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/chinese-academy-of-sciences-857">Chinese Academy of Sciences</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-africa-stands-to-benefit-if-rise-in-global-temperatures-is-kept-to-1-5-c-97098">original article</a>.

Here’s why it would be in Africa’s best interests for rise of global temperatures to be kept to 1.5°C

After being in draft format for nearly two years, the National Greenhouse Gas Reporting Regulations were published by the Minister of Environmental Affairs on the 3rd of April 2017. This briefing document provides a short summary of part of the regulations and highlights what we believe to be some of the key issues for business.
The full regulations can be downloaded at the following link: <a href="http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/40762_gen275.pdf">www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/40762_gen275.pdf</a>
South Africa is undoubtedly moving to some form of carbon pricing regime. The timing and format (carbon tax, carbon budget or a combination thereof) are still unknown, but the greenhouse gas (GHG) data reported to the government as part of these regulations will form the basis for this carbon pricing regime. Companies impacted by the legislation therefore need to make sure their data is accurate and complete as it will have financial implications.
Few changes have been made to the final regulations so there should be no major surprises. But for companies that have not been following the draft regulations, there are some important considerations that are outlined below.
<h3>Important considerations</h3>
<ul>
<li>Reporting Boundaries. Companies must define their reporting boundaries based on operational control, defined by the regulations as “the full authority to introduce and implement its operating policies at the company”. For companies that have been using the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard for reporting of their GHG emissions historically and have adopted a slightly different approach, either financial control or equity share, this will need to be addressed.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Inclusion / exclusion of certain emissions. The regulations require companies to exclude emissions from mobile combustion (emissions from vehicles) as well as emissions from purchased electricity and refrigerants. Emissions from waste and waste-water treatment are included (provided you exceed the threshold – see the point below on thresholds). If your current GHG emissions inventory is not set up to include or exclude these sources, you may well end up over or under-reporting your emissions.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Emission factors and methodology. The regulations refer to the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006)” as the basis for calculating emissions. These guidelines have been translated for South African companies into a slightly easier format by the Technical Guidelines for Monitoring, Reporting, Verification and Validation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Industry (hereafter referred to as the Technical Guidelines). To understand the reporting requirements properly, the regulations and the Technical Guidelines must be read together. The most important methodological considerations are:</li>
</ul>
o   The emission factors to be used must be in line with the IPPC requirements and are mostly provided in the Technical Guidelines. For companies that previously relied on the UK Government’s DEFRA as a source of emission factors, this will need to change. There are also South African specific emission factors for certain fuels, such as diesel and petrol, which companies must be aware of.
o   Companies must report their GHG emissions for carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) separately. Global Warming Potentials (GWP), which are a measure of how much a GHG contributes to global warming relative to CO2 for these gasses, are also specified in the regulations and must be sourced from the IPCC 3rd Assessment Report.
o   The IPCC Guidelines divide emissions into four main categories, termed sectors (which are Energy, Industrial Processes and Product Use (IPPU), Waste and Agriculture, Forestry and Land-use (AFOLU)), which are further divided into several sub-sectors. Companies will need to determine which sector and sub-sector their emissions fall into.
o   The IPCC Guidelines provide several options for calculating the emissions, described as tiers. There are three levels of tiers: 1, 2 and 3. Each tier has an associated increasing level of detail and accuracy, with the tier 3 method requiring the most accurate approach. The regulations specify which tier to use, usually either tier 2 or 3.
<ul>
<li>Thresholds per source category. The regulations provide thresholds per emission source, above which companies are required to report. In the Energy sector, this is typically 10MW for the energy sources and varies for other categories (e.g. 5 tonnes of waste per day for waste disposal sites and 4 million bricks per month in the brick manufacturing sector). For most companies, the most important part of this is that the 10MW refers to the design capacity and not how much fuel you consumed. In addition, it is not linked to one piece of equipment larger than 10MW. The regulations provide an example of 6 2MW boilers, equating to 12MW, that would then exceed the threshold. Interestingly, this approach may require a company with a number of sites with backup generators to trigger the 10MW threshold, even if no diesel was consumed for that year in those generators.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Calendar year. Reporting needs to be done on a calendar year basis. For companies whose financial year does not end in December, this will require a good system to cater for this requirement.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Timing. The regulations don’t explicitly state this but it is expected that companies will need to report their 2017 data by March 2018. As an aside, the Department of Environmental Affairs is asking companies, through their industry associations, to provide historical data so that the National GHG Inventory is more complete.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Registration. Companies will need to register their company and the facilities that exceed the threshold on the South African National Atmospheric Emission Inventory System (NAEIS) which will serve as the reporting portal for GHG data. Note that the GHG module on the NAEIS is not functioning yet but it is understood that this will be ready by March 2018. The regulations require facilities to register within 30 days of publication of the regulations. Although companies are required to register the facilities that exceed the threshold, it is our understanding that because reporting is done per IPCC category, facility-level reporting is not mandatory. This allows for companies with multiple sites to consolidate their data. For example, the 6 sites with 2MW boilers could then report emissions from coal (assuming they are all coal-fired boilers) collectively under a single line item in the NAEIS.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Validation and verification. The regulations don’t require verified data, but if the competent authority deems the data to not be transparent, complete or correct they may undertake on-site verification and validation which the company will be responsible for paying for.</li>
</ul>
<h3>What actions should you take?</h3>
Companies must register and familiarize themselves with the NAEIS and ensure they are ready to report by March 2018. Many companies have been reporting their GHG emissions data for a number of years so the transition to mandatory reporting should be relatively straightforward. However, it is important that your GHG inventory is set up to allow for:
<ol>
<li>Clarity on your boundary approach, focussed on operational control for mandatory reporting.</li>
<li>Disaggregation of emission sources (e.g. mobile and stationary combustion) per facility.</li>
<li>Transparency on emission factors and GWPs and the ability to easily change these. The IPCC Guidelines and the Technical Guidelines must be consulted in this regard.</li>
<li>Ability to easily include or exclude emission sources (e.g. exclusion of emission from electricity for mandatory reporting but inclusion for voluntary reporting).</li>
<li>Clarity around design capacities of fuel combustion equipment.</li>
<li>Monthly data capture and reporting, particularly for companies with financial year ends that are not in December.</li>
<li>Verification of your GHG data. It is recommended that this is conducted by an organisation that understands the requirements of the IPCC Guideline.</li>
</ol>

global warming

Climate explained: how much of climate change is natural? How much is man-made?

IFC’s Hans Peter Lankes talks on financing low-carbon infrastructure in Africa

Here’s why it would be in Africa’s best interests for rise of global temperatures to be kept to 1.5°C

Look out for new greenhouse gas regulations

News Tips

Advertise With Us

global warming

Climate explained: how much of climate change is natural? How much is man-made?

IFC’s Hans Peter Lankes talks on financing low-carbon infrastructure in Africa

Here’s why it would be in Africa’s best interests for rise of global temperatures to be kept to 1.5°C

Look out for new greenhouse gas regulations

News Tips

Advertise With Us

Newsletters