In defence of butterfly eggs
Minister of Housing Lindiwe Sisulu’s comments about housing delivery being “held hostage by butterfly eggs” (“Ministries aim to trash green laws”, March 17) demonstrates her tenuous grasp of the basic laws of the universe. She faces two insurmountable problems:
- The “growth” she and others seek is a long-term physical impossibility.
- Economics is merely a subset of human endeavours, constrained by the limits of our physical environment.
Growth is a term intrinsic to the life sciences. After birth, a child has a short developmental spurt in which real growth occurs, followed by a lifetime of physical stasis (no growth), to be followed finally by death.
Growth in the economic sense co-opts the mathematical concept of “exponential expansion” disguised as an organic process. It implies a constant and infinitely sustained increase on each end-of-year outcome.
A “growth” of 6% per annum in the case of an average human child would mean that, aged 72, he/she would be 220kg and “growing” at 14kg a year, and at 100, well over 1 000kg and “growing” at 67kg a year. Imagine the food energy needs of such a creature!
Which raises the second point, of sustainability — living within the regenerative capacity of the biosphere, and remembering that human economic activity occurs as a small part of ecological systems, not separate from them. It means, as a society, adopting an economic system in which the growth curve aims for a plateau. Anything different is unsustainable.
We depend on the biosphere, not the other way around. Water doesn’t come from taps, energy doesn’t come from plugs and food doesn’t come from a supermarket shelf.
Our lives and our societies are intrinsically linked to the Earth and her complex systems. In this context, Sisulu’s butterfly eggs represent more than meets the eye. They represent the destruction of a habitat that might play a vital role in maintaining the integrity of an ecosystem. They represent our thoughtless and arrogant attitude that other creaturs’ lives, and ways of life, are unimportant. They represent how unattached we feel to our physical place in the world. They represent our society’s love of money over life. They represent our relentless pursuit of an unattainable expansion, regardless of the long-term costs.
So, for Sisulu’s benefit, the environmental philosophy recognises that we are part of our environment, not separate from it. It gives us a sense of place and custodianship. It recognises that we depend on that environment for our life, and that misguided actions today could adversely affect the Earth for many generations. — Dr David Pienaar, Cape Town
Sisulu’s comments would be laughable, if they were not so tragic.
They are symptomatic of the dangerous lack of knowledge of most politicians, government officials and others responsible for development planning and service delivery in South Africa. They show how little these people understand about providing for improved human quality of life, let alone the “preservation of the environment” that Sisulu refers to with such derision.
Section 24 of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution promises South Africans an environment that does not harm their health and well-being, and that the environment will be protected for human benefit now and in the future. It is the government’s responsibility to orchestrate this, which it has partly enacted through promulgation of environmental and planning laws.
The problem is not compliance with these laws, but that few people seem to understand their purpose. Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are part of a process intended to ensure that we don’t damage the life-support systems (air, water, soil, energy exchanges) that not only the butterflies rely on for their continued existence but human beings as well. There is only so much water that can be shared among living beings on Earth, only so much land suitable for growing food, and strict limits on how much waste and toxic material can be digested by these natural systems that keep us alive. This is the context in which an EIA practitioner must investigate the feasibility of service delivery projects, and the economic growth that the country so desperately seeks.
The legislation is not at fault. It is the lack of knowledge and insight into the purpose of EIAs and the services provided to us by “the environment”, which is destroying any chance of sound planning and delivery.
Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Marthinus van Schalkwyk has a critical responsibility in government. He must ensure that his fellow politicians and government officials jack up their knowledge of the way the world really works, and stop backing down in the face of the opposition brought by the “economic cluster”. Our future prospects for quality of life very much lie in his hands. — Benita Olen, Johannesburg
It is disappointing that Sisulu, in a position of such influence for so long, has yet to recognise that EIAs address the potential impacts of proposed development on all aspects of the biophysical and socio-economic environment, not just rare species.
EIAs address issues as diverse as water supply, waste management, stormwater management, ground stability and air quality. Failure to integrate such considerations into the government’s own planning process for RDP housing has resulted in development on unsuitable land. Homeowners may find their new homes inundated with floodwater after heavy rain, undermined by sinkhole development or rendered uninhabitable by inadequate sewage management.
Failure to manage these impacts of development results in a deterioration of the environment, and translates into a direct cost to the government in terms of the effect on community health and welfare.
Should Sisulu’s apparent desire to scrap EIA requirements to fast track development become a reality, one might ask what factories and mines will use to determine how to manage their impacts on the environment, host communities and society in general. Without doing an EIA, they will lack the information to operate within the law. Is this really the kind of economic development the government is seeking? — CL Reichardt, school of mining engineering, Wits University
Article defamed league
Sam Sole’s article on the African National Congress Youth League and Brett Kebble (March 10) fails to draw a distinction between the youth league as an organisation, represented by its executive board, and members of the league acting in their personal capacities.
The article seeks to introduce an element of confusion, designed to convey an incorrect impression to the average reader that the league acted in concert with the members mentioned in the article.
Neither Sole nor the newspaper made any attempt to obtain the league’s comment, which borders on negligence.
The article draws a connection between the youth league and ANC vice-president Jacob Zuma, alluding to the league’s support for him. The failure to state the basis of this support — namely, his right to be presumed innocent and to a fair trial — serves to reinforce the view among readers that the league lacks judgement.
The league views the article as defamatory and as falling short of reasonable standards. The M&G acted negligently and/or recklessly. — Fikile Mbalula, ANCYL
A one-sided view
Lloyd Gedye implies that the road freight industry is operated by a bunch of cowboys (“Road kill”, March 10). He has done some research, but considers only one side of the issue. I would like to draw attention to the following:
- Eighty percent of South Africa’s freight is moved by road, testifying to the efficiency of road hauliers and the inefficiency of the rail network and the government. Transnet should explain exactly how the rail network has been allowed to deteriorate to the extent that it has.
- While you may think R410 is a paltry sum to pay for a heavy truck to travel to Johannesburg, it amounts to about 9% of invoice value. Any increases to the toll tariff would eventually be passed on to the end-user — the consumer.
- A truck tractor pulling a superlink trailer combination pays about R22 000 a year in licence fees, as opposed to about R500 for the average passenger car.
- A truck that leaves Durban harbour en route to Jo’burg potentially goes through weighbridges in the harbour, and in Pinetown, Pietermaritzburg, Estcourt, Ladysmith (should the driver choose not to use the toll road) and Heidelberg (a compulsory stop).
An operator would be foolhardy to attempt to overload a truck en route to Jo’burg — the driver would inevitably be caught at one of these weighbridges. The fines are heavy and overloaded vehicles must have their loads rectified before being allowed to continue. The costs of this render the trip unfeasible.
So it is that I have serious doubts about the alleged high percentage of overloaded trucks on our roads.
South Africa’s trucks do carry larger payloads than their American counterparts, but the load is carried using two trailers — American hauliers pull only one. This means that in South Africa the load is spread over a longer surface area. Truck combinations measure 22m and have seven axles.
Before this was permitted, impact studies were obviously carried out by the relevant authorities.
Could we have a more balanced view on the matter? — Nash Singh
All praise to Pregs et al!
I am relieved that, in our current political climate of guilt-induced self-censorship, leaders like Pregs Govender, Gill Marcus, Cheryl Carolus, Barney Pityana and Njabulo Ndebele have had the courage to convey so publicly and intelligently their abhorrence over Jacob Zuma’s rape trial. Their actions bring sanity back to the tragic issues surrounding the rampant abuse of women and children in our society. — Chris Reinders, Johannesburg
Carolus and Marcus are not in touch with women’s needs on the ground, so it is perplexing that they are taking the moral high ground on JZ’s rape trial. There are hundreds of other rape trials on our court rolls, yet they have never said anything about the issue before. It would be more comprehensible if the same noise came from renowned and serious women’s rights activists such as Winnie Mandela and Albertina Sisulu, who have experienced women’s pain first hand. — Pat Rampoi, Johannesburg
We are told Pityana has a BProc, yet he does not know the sub judice law (March 10). He suggests Zuma’s alleged crime is heinous, meaning he has already found him guilty! — Parapara Makgahlela, Attridgeville
Gauteng detective commissioner Norman Taioe, who failed to use basic procedures in investigating the Zuma case, should take a severance package before further tarnishing the image of the police. — Kgabo Mashamaite, Tembisa
Cock-eyed
Applause to Robert Kirby for pointing out the irksome usage of the wrong signifier for the visible parts of the female “reproductive undercarriage” (Loose Cannon, March 17).
Some might argue that a “rose is a rose” and that sticklers like me and the columnist should just shut up.
But it’s plain wrong that little girls are being taught to talk about their “vaginas” when they mean the parts they can see, and when they’re probably unaware that the tunnel exists at all. Where did this cock-eyed labelling orginate?
Far better to employ that other, punchy little word, and to hell with its “offensive” connotation. — Linda Weber, Tshwane