Solve issues or scrap provinces
This is an opportune time to revisit the debate on the viability of having provinces (“Power, patronage and the provinces“, December 2). One school of thought says the provinces should be scrapped because they are a financial burden on the country. Do we really need them? In my view, the role played by provinces could be played by local government.
But I doubt the ruling party would be willing to scrap the provinces — understandably so. Doing away with them would cause political turmoil in the ruling party because it would result in job losses for cadres.
The news that three provincial governments (Free State, Gauteng and Limpopo) led by the ANC are in dire financial straits is shocking but not surprising. It was a long time coming. I just hope there are no other provinces, such as the Eastern Cape, in a similar position.
The major contributory factors are mismanagement, corruption and cadre deployment. But, instead of accepting responsibility for their failure to manage their budgets, the provinces shift the blame. They claim their financial woes are caused by high salary increments. It is clear that the premiers of the affected provinces have failed.
The challenge faced by these provinces has the potential to bring down our already strained economy. The government would do well to find a lasting solution to this problem. For as long as the ANC is unwilling to fire incompetent deployees and for as long as corruption is not curbed, the status quo will remain and a better life for all will be nothing but a pipe dream. — Thabile Mange
Our programmes are not the easy way out
As the United Nations World Food Programme country office in Swaziland we object to the implication in the article “Aids orphans take charge” (World Aids Day supplement, December 2) that our food assistance programmes create dependency among beneficiaries in the country.
In particular, we take exception to the paragraph that states: “Most local families have abandoned subsistence farming to qualify for World Food Programme hand-outs, an easier and more reliable option than farming. It is said that if one family grows food it threatens the entire area’s eligibility for hand-outs. There are tales of neighbours setting fire to crops at night.”
This is a baseless comment. There are no facts to support such a criticism nor are any sources quoted.
Since 2002 the UN World Food Programme has been implementing various programmes ranging from emergency relief to the ongoing relief and recovery operation. Its food assistance is always based on vulnerability assessments and stringent selection criteria. As a result, only the most vulnerable food-insecure Swazis become eligible for support. Our operations are reviewed regularly. A recent review was when we developed a new country strategy for 2011-2015, in which we have extensive stakeholder participation.
Assistance in Swaziland is targeted at ensuring that food-aid dependency is minimised and also ensures cost-effective and quality-driven results.
Your article is damaging to the programme’s reputation and jeopardises the ability to provide food assistance to the most vulnerable Swazis. — Karla Hershey, representative and country director, World Food Programme
Nuclear makes no sense
Three articles in last week’s Mail & Guardian (December 9) refer to energy and combined they make interesting reading — “Govt nuke boss goes private” by Lionel Faull, “Nuclear power is a key part of SA’s future” by Minister of Energy Dipuo Peters and “Poised for gust of wind power” by Lloyd Gedye.
Peters says 9.6 gigawatt of nuclear generation capacity will be built at a cost of R1-trillion. Let’s compare the costs with that of renewable energies. The generation capacity for the production of the same amount of electricity through concentrated solar or wind would cost about 50% to 60% of the price for nuclear, leaving a lot of money for grid adjustment and storage facilities. Concentrated solar energy can provide base load anyway.
This is a comparison of the investment costs alone. It is common knowledge that renewable energies have far lower costs of operation and decommissioning and they create more jobs than nuclear energy.
Peters says delivery of electricity from nuclear power will start in 2023. Gedye informs us that China has built 18.9 gigawatt of wind-generation capacity in 2010 alone. Why must we wait 12 years for delivery?
I have been wondering what informs the energy policy of the government. Faull’s article on the cosy relationship between government advisors and the nuclear industry shed some light on that.
In conclusion, nuclear energy is not only dangerous, but makes no economic sense.
It is high time to protest and stop the tender before all of us have to foot the bill. — Susanna Godehart, Durban
The drawing accompanying Peters’s article shows one hand cooking the Earth in a pan while another is trying to put out the flames with a fire extinguisher marked with the sign of the atom. This is ironic — and doubly so because the minister proposes to reduce carbon emissions by 34% by 2020 and 42% by 2025. But it cannot be done with nuclear power. The first nuclear power unit will only start generating in 2023 at the earliest, and then the nuclear power expansion will first have to pay off its own carbon debt.
So the contribution of nuclear power in South Africa to “putting out the fire” in the period 2011 to 2025 is zero. — Rod Gurzynski, Kommetjie
On ‘Nuclear power is a key part of SA’s future’ by Minister of Energy Dipuo Peters:
Nuclear is not viable [because] all the actual costs of mining and beneficiation of the fuel (uranium) is excluded and every nuclear power plant has been heavily subsidised. The cost of nuclear is rising exponentially against the fall in sustainable and renewable power; delivery is suspect and unreliable. We require a new way of doing things [about] energy needs, not hanging on to solutions that are dangerous and expensive.” — Judith Taylor
If any country in the world is serious about being environmentally friendly then the clear answer is a combination of nuclear power and renewables, with an ultimate goal of being as renewable as possible. Nuclear is by no means the demon people make it out to be. — SafarijackSA
It is all very well when we consider domestic use, but when we look at the real demand for base-load power, we are talking about things like aluminium smelters and other production plants. How do you expect them to “use less”? They are already using as little as possible, [because] electricity consumption is the most fundamental factor in their bottom line. Politics aside, the nation’s future hinges on its ability to generate adequate reliable base-load power to support industry. The domestic user can play around with solar panels, wind turbines and other uneconomical “solutions”, but when it comes to commercial and industrial users, we should actually have a “use more” principle. We should be encouraging industrial growth with cheap, plentiful and reliable power. South Africa has only two options: coal and nuclear. Coal is the cheaper option by far, but as we know, nuclear is the cleaner and statistically safer option by far. — Grumpy Dunce
Nuclear power is a seriously ungreen, dangerous and expensive process. Germany has voted for the Kernkraftausstieg, Japan will struggle for decades with Fukushima, still releasing radioactive water into the sea. Let us not forget Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Windscale in England. There they renamed it Sellafield, as if name changes solve any real problems: if we invested in sun and windpower it would be a start in caring for the planet. Producing radioactive waste that will poison the planet for thousands of years is another short-term and self-defeating approach. — Gideon Rossouw
On ‘Jackie Selebi is Jesus‘ (titled ‘What Jesus wouldn’t do’ in the paper) by Chris Roper:
So if Jackie Selebi is Jesus (sacrificed for our sins) then ANC rule is over? [Because] Jesus has come home? No? — Intern Africa
Problem is, Jesus rose on the third day. Selebi has been in the clink for four days now and no sign of parole or escape yet. — Myth Os
Your headline got the attention you wanted. From now on, whenever I see your name attached to anything, I will gladly avoid it. Your opinion is very misguided, and I am very disappointed with the M&G for publishing such cr@p. — Michael Taylor.
Your sympathy for Selebi is understandable [because] he was merely carrying out the wishes of [Thabo] Mbeki. Remember that Mbeki became the darling of our media mafia when he announced that he would “make himself available” to stand for a third term [as ANC president] … Our media mafia supported Mbeki and his repeated attempts at character assassination of our then-presidential candidate, Jacob Zuma. Again, further proof that our media mafia could care less about democracy. — Dave Harris
The only mafia in South Africa would appear to be the ANC and buds. Look closely at Zuma, who said clearly he would only run for one term. Is he running again to fight the mafia, or is he hand in hand with them? Zuma is still up on charges, and law enforcement and judicial shenanigans will be full, front and in view. — David Hurst
On ‘The state of the state’ by Shaun de Waal, a review of three books including Hein Marais’s South Africa Pushed to the Limits:
Highly informative reading and [it’s] very evident that the lack of comments indicate the average South African’s lack of interest. This is probably [a result of] the fact that they do not find intelligent and meaningful comments of any interest or significance and in any case reading such would obviously interfere with their TV schedule and gazing at the pictures in sensation-based magazines. No wonder we have a problem in South Africa today — not enough folks are actually interested in knowing what is really going on. Their only concerns are that they have a TV set and a cellphone. Ignorance is bliss and the ignorant will remain subdued. — Peter Nel
Maybe the reason that South Africans are turned off by this type of analysis is that it has all been said a hundred times before. The piece is well written and sits well with a certain type of left-leaning academic and journalistic tradition in South Africa. Where else will you find such unself conscious references to Marx, Lenin, et al? The world has moved on but South Africa seems not to have noticed. The real story is of corruption, decline, stagnation, paralysis … Who really cares what these niche-player academics have to say? In any event, no one in power is listening. — Anton van Niekerk