eu_flag.jpg
This project has been funded by the European Union.

Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty

sairr.gif

 

Newsletter 42 - Jobs or polar bears? – 9 October 2009

Although the environment is an important issue, and will probably become increasingly so for future generations, environmental needs have to be juxtaposed against the developmental needs of South Africa and the developing world.

The environment is an increasingly important issue in global politics, and Green parties in much of the industrialised world are growing in strength. In Germany that country’s Green party regularly wins more than 10% of the vote, and was, between 1998 and 2005, a partner in the governing coalition with the Social Democrats. Currently Green parties govern as coalition partners in the Czech Republic and Ireland. Green parties also have representation, either at national or regional level in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and much of Europe. A Green candidate, Ms Caroline Lucas, is the favourite to win a parliamentary seat in the British coastal city of Brighton in that country’s upcoming general election. If she is successful, it will be the first time that a Green politician is elected to the House of Commons.

However, Green parties in the developing world seldom fare well, and South Africa is no different. Only once in this country has a Green party contested a national election. This was in 1999 when the Government by the People – Green Party ran. It won fewer than 10 000 votes. The party also contested the provincial elections in the Western Cape in 1994, 1999, and 2004. However, it won fewer than 4 000 votes in each of the three provincial elections.
It is clear that, in politics at least, the environment is not an important issue for the majority of South Africans. However, it is becoming an increasingly important issue in global forums. Recently the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), an international non-governmental organisation dedicated to the conservation of the environment, called on the South African Government to begin cutting carbon emissions immediately. However, the Department of Environmental Affairs forecasts that South Africa’s carbon emissions will continue to rise until 2020.
The country’s emissions will then hold steady for ten years, and begin to drop between 2030 and 2035. According to a British risk assessment company, Maplecroft, South Africa is the world’s 13th largest emitter of carbon dioxide, at 10.04 tons per person, per year. The WWF also reported that this country has one of the most carbon-intensive economies in the world. South Africa’s economy is five to ten times less carbon-efficient than those of the US, UK, and Japan.
Although the environment is an important issue, and will probably become increasingly so for future generations, environmental needs have to be juxtaposed against the developmental needs of South Africa and the developing world. It is telling that the Green movement is strong in the developed countries of the West. With poverty largely beaten, and with liberal democracy having won the ideological war against Soviet communism, ‘going Green’ has become politically fashionable in rich countries. In a country like South Africa, where a large proportion of the population continue to live in grinding poverty without work, being ‘Green’ is perhaps a luxury that this country cannot currently afford.
Data from the latest South Africa Survey, which is due to be published this month, shows that nearly 20 million South Africans live in relative poverty. People are defined as living in relative poverty if their household income is less than the poverty income. The more people in a household the higher the poverty threshold. A household of one person has a poverty threshold of R871 to while a household of eight people has a poverty threshold of R3 314. Therefore if a household of eight people earns less than R3 314 a month, they are defined as living in relative poverty. With nearly 20 million people living in relative poverty, this equates to just over 40% of the country’s population living in relative poverty. Nearly half of African South Africans live in relative poverty.
A trade and investment adviser to the WWF in South Africa, Mr Peet du Plooy, was quoted as saying: ‘The cheapest way of cutting emissions would be to not make certain investment choices, such as building a smelter.’
In a country where at least a quarter of the population is unemployed, it is wrong, even immoral, to not encourage investment which could create jobs. It is unlikely that the average unemployed South African is overly concerned with the polar bear’s fight for survival in the Arctic, or the spread of the Sahara desert into arable land, despite the importance of these issues. It is more likely that they are concerned with securing gainful employment and being able to provide food, education, and comfort for themselves and their families.
The Institute has shown in a number of briefings and publications that for South Africa to be a relatively prosperous society by 2030, the country’s economy has to grow at a rate of at least 6%. This will not be possible without foreign investment and continued industrialisation. Much of the investment is likely to be in carbon-intensive industries, and this is a price South Africa must be prepared to pay to end widespread poverty and unemployment.
The South African Government is right to not commit itself to cutting this country’s carbon emissions. Further investment into this country and the continued industrialisation of South Africa will lead to prosperity and a decline in poverty and unemployment. The environment is, without doubt, an important global issue, but at this stage of its development, South Africa has more pressing concerns.

Local government in particular already faces significant service delivery challenges, and limiting potential economic growth for the sake of the environment will only exacerbate these challenges.

 
-          Marius Roodt
by nkgafela — last modified 2009-10-12 08:51
This website has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty and the South African Institute of Race Relations and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.