Because worldwide economies are based on artificially valued commodities derived from irreplaceable, finite natural resources, there is no chance of things improving until we change our values, our ideas regarding what constitutes 'profitability' and our attitude to nature. We have to attach a real price to that which is extracted and manipulated in various ways, and rethink our value systems in their entirety.
Gold, for a start, is a false standard on which to base anything at all, let alone the economic well-being of every nation - and therefore every person - on the face of the earth. Personally I cannot think of a single good use for the stuff! Yet it seems as if SA is determined to lose most of its reserves anyway within the next decade since:
the SA Government recently approved the construction of five new coal fired power plants to be built over the next 20 years. Due to the "extra expense" (CEO-Eskom) these are to be built without readily available filtration systems.
This could be an excellent time for eco-activists to use their considerable clout to deflect this disastrous course of action, since the present SA government is in a state of disarray. The lack of adequate measures to ensure energy provision in fact played a major role in the downfall of the current administration. Thus there is a small window of opportunity to reach the new government at the highest level.
The incoming government should be duly sensitised to the dangers of ignoring scientists and technologists who warned of an impending energy crisis some 15 years ago. Their current predictions of the foolhardiness of investing further resources in coal as a primary method of energy generation are likewise falling on deaf ears as far as the old administration goes.
Carbon Credits and the Polluter Pays Principle-
What are the Economic Implications for SA?
It is certainly rather odd that if you read most of SA's White Papers or its NGO, government, academic and industry statements you will not find this perspective. Yet in the light of these facts the official, worthy-sounding government and industry stance is basically hypocrisy at its worst.
Activists and other concerned people should urgently bring this to the attention of the media, foreign donors, relevant international bodies and other key parties. If there is enough international pressure, surely the incoming SA government might be prevailed upon to urgently investigate and honestly invest in viable, acceptable, cleaner methods of energy generation for its people.
Verified facts that are not widely known
* Only 19% of SA's population have access to electricity.
* The remainder of the population use wood, coal or paraffin.
* Paraffin is supplied in bulk to local stores by international oil companies such as Shell, BP, Total etc. It is dispensed by local stores into any container that customers provide, though it is actually highly inflammable aviation fuel.This is then used in sub-standard appliances which readily explode, causing entire communities to be razed to the ground on a regular basis.
* Apart from one 30 year old French nuclear power plant (Koeberg) all SA's intermittent, unreliable electricity supply is generated from coal
* SA's coal is extremely low grade, and its extraction uses more electricity than any other industry in the country.
* Coal mining pollutes truly enormous volumes of increasingly scarce fresh water supplies.
* The national energy provider, Eskom, recently de-mothballed several old coal fired power plants which had been closed down several years ago due their outdated, inefficient technologies and the unacceptably high levels of carbon and other toxic emissions.
* The SA Government recently approved the construction of five new coal fired power plants to be built over the next 20 years. These are to be built without filtration systems due to the extra costs involved.
* SA has been granted substantial funding from the World Bank, that in turn purports to have sustainability as its core ethic.
* According to Eskom carbon sequestration is likewise not an option due to additional costs.
* SA is thus planning to supply its own and its neighbour's energy requirements until at least 2070 by burning coal.
* The entire process is so inefficient that only 2% of the potential energy of this non-renewable fossil fuel is in fact utilised as electricity by the time it reaches the end user.
* 98% of its potential energy is therefore converted into persistent chemical compounds and both air and water pollution
* Yet the SA government claims that burning coal is the CHEAPEST, SAFEST method of bulk energy generation available!
Modern Alchemy! Fossil>Fuels>to>Garbage
Surely there is a problem with contemporary value systems if the cost of such an inordinately irresponsible, primitive, environmentally unethical process is considered only in terms of that man-made commodity known as money? How cheap - and indeed how safe - is a process that could ultimately destroy the Earth itself?
And how do the industrialised Northern Hemisphere countries justify giving us foreign aid so that we in turn can disproportionately pollute everyone's air?
What happens when the "Polluter Pays Principle" becomes globally enforced? Will it still be considered to be a "cheap" option when polluters are forced to pay? 
What will we do with the money when there's no more air or water?
I predict that the US will sign the Kyoto Protocal within the next four years, and will spearhead the policing of carbon debits internationally. As we are already the worst carbon polluters per capita globally, this international carbon tax will risk bankrupting SA. It will therefore refuse to pay, and worldwide sanctions will be imposed that will make the Apartheid era look quite pleasant.
"We could have saved the earth but we are just too damned cheap" - Kurt Vonnegut Jnr.
Apartheid Era Sanctions: Act ll - only this time...on Steroids
SA is condemned to enter what will become The Energy Apartheid Era, where it will be shunned by the rest of the world because of the government's shortsighted, irresponsible energy policies and unsustainable, inefficient energy generation practices.
Being the pariah of the world during the apartheid years could be considered bad... HA! Think again! It's nothing compared to the global outrage that will shortly be unleashed upon this erstwhile democratic rainbow nation.
Within the next decade SA could once again be excluded from the UN as outcasts who are clearly prepared to sacrifice the future of the planet in its entirety because the government deemed it "cheaper" to burn low grade coal, without adequate filtration systems due to the added cost, back in '07-'08.
The values underpinning this decision can only be seen as morally reprehensible, ethically impoverished and corrupt. And since money clearly cannot buy back the natural resources that are currently being squandered in the name of "cheap" options, what on Earth will we do with our filthy lucre when there's no more air or water? This time round the ostracism wil know no bounds, since these myopic, selfish, essentially illegitimate national policies will affect more than the political and humanitarian conscience of the rest of the world.
Diamonds - and Mass Extinctions - are Forever
Basically the last centuries have seen us do exactly what cavemen did - burn plants! We take lots of very old plants that can never be replaced out of the earth, attach a strange value to them - using this compelling invention called money - and sacrifice the health and the life force of the planet itself in our greed to possess even more of our strange invention.
That's progress folks!
We are so seduced by our fabulous financial concept that we decree that no one can survive without it, and thus anything and everything is justified in our quest to get hold of as much of this illusory commodity as possible.
There is not a single wild species left on earth that is not seriously endangered. 80% of the last century's living species have quietly, ignominiously slipped into the abyss of no return. The only species left on Earth apart from homo sapiens are those we can eat, pet, hunt or turn into tourist attractions.
The right to be left the right stuff ... oh yeah ... fresh air!
Now imagine what will happen when the rest of the world realises that a mere handful of people (only 19,000 to be exact) on the tip of Africa, are knowingly sacrificing that increasingly rare, vulnerable commodity that rightfully belongs to all the citizens of Planet Earth - oxygen! At the same time they are destroying the fragile layer of atmosphere that is all that lies between all life on Earth and oblivion.
Nothing DISAPPEARS Into Thin Air...except Human Morality
Do you know how much of the energy generated by burning a lump of coal we actually USE? Take a guess!
No, worse than that....the answer is .... 2%! Yes, its true. We take ancient fossil fuels and put them in a big old furnace and by the time it reaches your shiny new "environmentally FRIENDLY" refrigerator you will utilise only 2% of its energy. The rest? It goes into the thin air which (unlike the average human) is getting thinner all the time.
Out of sight does not mean gone forever though, since a veritable toxic soup is emanated at the same time consisting of persistent chemical compounds and EXTREMELY DANGEROUS, UNMANAGED, UNCONTAINED RADIATION that will contaminate the Earth's natural systems forever. They will eventually be released into space when the atmosphere protecting the earth is gone and our once exquisitely fecund, graceful planet becomes a cold, dark, lifeless lump of rock spinning aimlessly in space.
Expectation management can be a constructive strategy for avoiding the messy temper tantrums of the disappointed - or the very disillusioned. It's therefore just as well that we honestly inform the next generation that we are failing spectacularly as custodians of the last hope for the survival of the Earth as we know it.
It's likewise reassuring that we consider ourselves to be "descended" from apes. Lower than this from an evolutionary perspective it's hard to imagine any species can go. Even the lowly parasite usually refrains from devouring its host. Even pond scum protozoa have better survival instincts than man(un)kind appears to possess.
As so many of us are dying of cancer it seems ironical humans in turn have become a lethal form of cancer that is destroying our vast, seemingly inexhaustible yet astonishingly vulnerable hostess.
"If humans are the pinnacle of creation, I can only conclude that God is an under-achiever" - Woody Allen.
Why does Global Warming inspire so much Hot Air?
I think Al Gore had better make a movie about water rather urgently. He did such a fantastic job of waking the world up to the magnitude of our problems. But carbon isn't our only problem, irritatingly trendy as it has now become.
Extracting and burning coal as a fuel pollutes insane amounts of air and that other increasingly scarce resource - fresh water.
Yet "Third World" countries such as SA maintain that they are the victims of the industrialised Northern Hemisphere's poor performance in terms of carbon emissions. Eskom in particular receives foreign aid donations and preferential interest rates from entities such as the World Bank due to this inequality, as well as due to the endemic poverty of most African regions. The hypocrisy is shattering. The difference between the government's bucolic hyperbole (and that of the World Bank!) and the harsh reality of its practices has created a web of dishonesty that simply defies belief.
The latest SA book dedicated to global warming is: "Bending the Curve – Your guide to tackling climate change in South Africa" - by Robert Zipplie: published by Peter Borchard. It was co-authored by 24 local experts who are distinguished by their impressive academic credentials. It contains, according to their press release, "invaluable information...and includes specific chapters for government, civil society, business, investors, parents, farmers, you at home, architects, urban planners, etc."
Does one HAVE to lie fluently in order to be a politician?
The book boasts a Foreword by Marthinus van Schalkwyk, SA Minister of Environmental Affairs & Tourism. This must surely invalidate the sterling effort that the book represents, before it is even launched - especially when seen in the context of the national government's recent decisions to de-mothball old, substandard coal fired power stations and to build five new ones within the next 20 years. The final affornt is that they will be built without available filtration equipment, due to the added cost! Yet according to the Minister:
"We all ... have a moral obligation to act now to prevent this climate crisis from becoming unmanageable. The science is clear. Global emissions must peak and decline within the next 10 to 15 years. In order to achieve this, each and every one of us will have to make a contribution.
As formidable as the climate crisis is, it presents us with a tremendous opportunity... to live in greater harmony with our planet...There are many opportunities in the emerging carbon-constrained economy to build new industries that turn our comparative advantages into competitive advantages...Our government has already committed to putting in place fiscal, regulatory and legislative policies and measures that will pave the way towards a low-carbon economy and society. Corporations must transform their practices and build new climate-friendly industries.
Individuals must reduce their carbon footprints and lobby for change. I appeal to all of you to assist us in our efforts to reduce the emissions caused by ceaseless consumption, flying, driving and use of inefficient electrical appliances. Let us also ensure that we take responsibility for the members of our society who are least to blame for this problem and are ill-equipped to cope with the impending changes – they are the innocent bystanders".
Yeah right. If that is the Forward, let's hope we are not subjected to a Backward. Though that's more likely to be an Epitaph. Perhaps Eskom would accept the honour of writing one?
Well let everyone do as the Esteemed Minister suggests, with due haste and patriotic enthusiasm. Concerned citizens should immediately apply for 'higher' purchase loans from banking institutions and improve the local economy by purchasing shiny new "eco-friendly" cars and appliances.
All the while we should lobby ceaselessly, so that we may not end up as innocent bystanders, apathetic victims or knowledgeable 'experts' who stood by whilst government officials - who are in any case arguably no longer legitimate representatives - make unintelligent, immoral decisions that are guaranteed to destroy humanity's last chance of a sustainable future, both locally and globally.
(I would like to hear your views -
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
)
RESPONSE from Robert Zipplie, author of "Bending the Curve – Your guide to tackling climate change in South Africa"
Dear Arlene,
Without entering into a long discussion, here my thoughts:
- I think your article reads as a long rant, and my experience is that the rants, and I have written my fair share of them, is that they tend to alienate people instead of getting them to think about the issues at hand. Having been active in this field for a number of years now, I have realised that to rant definitely has a place (and none does it better than George Monbiot, who underpins his rants with referenced facts), but I have also found that ranting all too often closes minds before you even get the point across – I still tend to do this in some of my speeches.
- You may want to check a number of facts in your email – e.g. South Africa has the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world. This is not true. Our emissions are high, but most certainly not the highest. And it also significantly depends on what you count: emissions from fossil fuels only, deforestation, other land use change, etc. **(see my reply to this important point, below)
- I identify with your strong emotions: I frequently find myself hyperventilating at the urgency of this global emergency and oscillate between wanting to take to the streets, shout out loud and have even considered stronger forms of eco-activism. But with time I have come to the conclusion that working with the system is a good approach. E.g. Greenpeace is doing some of the best work now that they have started taking a more collaborative approach. This of course doesn't mean they don't still take real hard-core action from time to time.
- Change is undoubtedly always brought about by a few dedicated people who slowly encourage the masses to take up a new cause. This change in mass consciousness is something that almost always comes about in many ways – there is a place for highly emotional writing, objective writing, taking to the streets, lying down in front of bulldozers, etc. Everyone has different reasons for changing, and the method of action has to be chosen carefully each time. My book is one in a multitude of approaches that is necessary.
- I am sorry to hear that you feel the book is invalidated by MvS's foreword. My interpretation is that he is doing as much as he can within the confines of his current mandate – the mandate that we, the electorate give them (I am here of course not talking about you and me, but most voters who have little concern about climate change). Other than that, MvS has repeatedly been lauded for pushing the US, EU, China and India into doing more. He has been responsible for launching the Climate change scenarios in cabinet and SA is one of the more advanced developed nation countries with respect to planning about climate change. But all governments and businesses are to a large degree confined by their mandate – and until you and I and many others give them the mandate, progress will be slow.
I hope that helps Arlene. I wish you the best of luck in our mutual quest to create a more sustainable and just society. Warm regards, Rob** My reply:
The statistic about SA having the highest per capita carbon emissions - I believe it probably does pertain mainly to energy generation, since that is the largest sector responsible for carbon emissions in SA. That is certainly the context in which this statistic was mentioned by the Clinton Climate Initiative.
According to the Climate Change Summit held in Jhb - June 2008 - South Africa has been rated as the world's 13th biggest emitter of greenhouse gases by the International Panel of Climate Change. South Africa's estimated annual emissions of CO2 and related GHG amount to just over 400Mt.
Because only 19% of our population has access to electricity, this translates to an alarming per capita rate that is the highest worldwide, according to my research. With the building of these new power stations this alarming state of affairs can only be compounded.
I take your point about other causes of carbon emissions than the burning of fossil fuels - though there too there is cause for concern in terms of stated government policy compared with decisions that are made largely on the basis of short-term costs compared to long-term environmental impacts. In addition there is the prevailing lack of enforcement of such policies that do take environmental impacts into account.
I do not see how this reality fits with your comment that "SA is one of the more advanced developed nation countries with respect to planning about climate change." It seems that energy shortages are not good for votes, and votes always take precedence over environmental issues, as far as local politicians are concerned. - AC
