“A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”

Aldo Leopold

Wilderness

It is always interesting to be reminded of those events, activities and people that triggered change in views and perspectives on environmental matters. I have always been inspired by the writings of the American author, philosopher and conservationist, Aldo Leopold. Leopold first coined the term, “Wilderness”, not as a preserve for hunting, but as an area managed as an arena for a healthy biotic community. He brought focus on the importance of range and land management, as opposed to land mining and raping. His book, “A Sand County Almanac: with essays on conservation from Round River”, although first written in 1949, contains some wonderfully simple and wise thoughts on the changing seasons and how our human activities need to adjust to Nature’s varying demands and bounties. Ironically, effective protection of forests and wildlife on federal lands in the USA only began through the efforts of President Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919).

Pesticides

Rachel Carson published “Silent Spring” in 1962: A book which scientifically documented the pollution of air, water and wildlife from the widespread and uncontrolled use of pesticides such as DDT. She and her book were directly responsible for raising public awareness in the USA of pollution problems and subsequent better regulation of pesticides and herbicides.

South African climate change

Leonie Joubert, a South African freelance journalist and science writer, wrote a powerful book, “Scorched – South Africa’s changing climate” in 2006. The book spelled out the facts about climate change in this country but it had little if any effect on our regulators. She makes use of anecdotes to tell hard hitting stories about how climate change impacts every part of our life and functioning. Although 12 years old, this book still has a powerful and important message for us to consider in the way we run our lives. She quotes naturalist and writer, John Muir (1838-1914), “…When one tugs at a single thing in nature [one] finds it attached to the rest of the world…”. This important lesson is also reflected in the way in which current globalisation affects us all.

Uranium Road

South African researcher and writer, David Fig, wrote “Uranium Road” in 2005. His questioning of the development of nuclear technology and power generation in South Africa through an explanation of the secretive nuclear industry in the country created a basis for many activists to develop from. Once again, although this book is 13 years old, its chronicling of the nuclear industry is a real eye opener. Much of what David spelled out led to grassroots activists, Makoma Lekalakala and Liz McDaid building a broad coalition to stop the South African government’s massive secret nuclear deal with Russia. On April 26, 2017, the High Court ruled that the R1 trillion nuclear power project was unconstitutional—a landmark legal victory that protected South Africa from an unprecedented expansion of the nuclear industry and production of radioactive waste. The two were recognised by being awarded the 2018 Goldman Prize, the environmental activist equivalent of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Environmental Management in South Africa

“Environmental Management in South Africa” (2018) edited by ND King, HA Strydom and FP Retief is a doorstop of a book (1,387 pages!) which documents environmental management and law in South Africa and is THE environmental reference work for the country. Sadly, it highlights the fact that we have the legislation but not the means (or possibly the political will…) to apply it all.

Other Books

I don’t have the space to discuss other South African environmental books such as, “Vanishing Waters”   by Bryan Davies & Jenny Day” (1998), “Ecological Intelligence” (2005) by Ian McCallum, “Coming Back to Earth: South Africa’s Changing Environment” (2002) by James Clarke and David Holt-Biddle,  and “Invaded – The Biological Invasion of South Africa” (2009) by Leonie Joubert.

They are gems which have been written with passion and commitment.

Final Thoughts

Our lives are rushed, hurried and often we function on “putting out fires” rather than reflecting upon the matters that we need to act upon with deliberation, prioritisation and commitment. Many of these books give us insight into where the future lies for ourselves and our children and their children. We need to spend more time thinking about where we are and where we want to be. Life is not about being carried by the currents, it is about taking actions that will steer our futures. Take some time to read some of these types of books and think about where you want to be instead of where others are driving you to go.

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 35 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2018.

“The Source and Fate of Things”

 Have you ever considered what would happen if you were made to take responsibility for the sourcing, content and fate of all the “things” that you acquire?  That means being held accountable for the impacts of mining raw materials, their transport, the manufacture of the goods and their distribution and finally, their disposal.

One can imagine that if this happened, the first thing that everyone would realise is that in the vast majority of cases, they do not know what “things” are made of and what goes into their manufacture. If you knew what went into many products, you might decide not to buy them. At the moment, you don’t have that choice because in many cases, you have no way of knowing what they are made of.

The most common example of this is food. Labelling laws in South Africa are very weak compared to most European countries. (If you want to check, look at the ingredients on the side of a local can or container of processed food and compare it with a similar container imported from Europe – the difference is startling.) We eat a considerable amount of processed food and many allergies are triggered by the multifarious additives, preservatives, colourants, flavourants, flavour enhancers, sweeteners, thickeners, stabilizers, emulsifiers, antioxidants, acidity regulators, curing agents, etc. that are included.

The same applies to many of the goods that we buy. You may recall the uproar that occurred, internationally, not so long ago regarding certain additives in plastics that were found in children’s toys, especially baby toys.

This is not just about what we eat (or put into our mouths…) and its impact upon our health. The same applies to what the waste material (when we throw it away) puts into our soil and water when it leaches out from landfill sites. It is probably fair to say that many fair-minded people would not purchase products that contained hazardous chemicals, if they knew that the chemicals were present and if they were given the choice of less hazardous alternatives.

As you might imagine, the rest of the world has given this problem some thought and come up with a way of better understanding the “ingredients” of their “things”.  They use what is known as Life Cycle Assessment or Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), sometimes also known as “cradle to grave” investigation.  LCA is a way to investigate, estimate, and evaluate the environmental burdens caused by a material, product, process, or service throughout its life span.  Environmental burdens include the materials and energy resources required to create the product, process, or service, as well as the wastes and emissions generated during the process (See side bar).

By examining the entire life cycle, one gets a more complete picture of the environmental and health impact created and the trade-offs in impact from one period of the life cycle to another.  Results of LCAs can be useful for identifying areas with high environmental or health impact, and for evaluating and improving product designs. In its advanced computerised form, the data from LCAs can be used to compare and contrast different products and services to help chose those with the least or most benign impacts upon health and the environment.

We still have a long way to go before LCAs become an important part of our choices for purchase and use of goods and services. However, the first step is to look carefully at labels, contents and ingredients lists and materials of manufacture. If these are not clear, or missing, search for information using the Internet. You could also see if you can find if any LCAs have been carried out on your product or service. There are a growing number of LCAs freely available. They may not necessarily give you all the answers that you require but they certainly will give you the means to ask focussed and pertinent questions of your suppliers.

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 30 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2018.

Mention the word “litter” in a conversation with a group of people and it is almost guaranteed that everyone present will have a horror story or example of the scourge of litter. Kloof Conservancy chairman, Paolo Candotti, will tell you about his distress at the quantities of litter seen during a weekend walk through the beautiful Krantzkloof Reserve. Local newspapers were full of appalling photographs of Durban harbour and the beaches, covered in layers and layers of littler flushed down the streams and rivers of KwaZulu-Natal after the recent heavy storms.

What is litter? It consists mostly of debris from the “throw-away society” that has characterised the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries. It is mainly the cast offs of manufactured materials and goods such as plastic bottles and containers, cans, plastic and paper wrappings, newspapers, shopping bags, fast food packaging, cigarette packets and butts,  cardboard and rotten or left over food. On a larger scale, urban litter can also include dead animals, old clothing, oil filters, discarded tyres, planks, broken bricks, pieces of concrete, branches and leaves, old mattresses and broken furniture.

Just give a thought to all of this ending up in stormwater drains. It blocks the drains and results in flooding which causes significant damage and costs for repair and restoration. Seventeen years ago, the cost of keeping stormwater drains and waterways clean of this disgusting detritus was over R2 billion (R2,000 million) per year (at an annual inflation rate of 6%, that converts to R5.37 billion in today’s money).

What are the main causes of litter? The main cause is the anti-social behaviour of individuals dropping litter indiscriminately and dumping household wastes illegally. (It is a lazy myth to suggest that dropping litter creates jobs for people to pick it all up.) Inadequate disposal facilities, including insufficient litter and public disposal bins has been cited as another cause, linked to the failure of authorities to enforce effective penalties to act as a deterrent to offenders. It has also been suggested that the failure of street sweeping services to rid pavements and curb sides of litter and rubbish has also reinforced the “acceptability” of litter. Some municipalities have claimed that street sweeping was cut because it was an extravagant and unnecessary “beautification” cost, rather than an important, preventative function for keeping stormwater drains clear.

There is no simple or straightforward solution to littering. It requires a long term strategy which includes a widespread change in the social behaviour regarding the use and discarding of resources. (Let’s start by not using the word “waste”, but instead regarding it as a resource that we haven’t yet found a use for?) The “consumer society” must go back to a more practical and family based focus upon the resource hierarchy model of  use, reuse, repair, recycle and return.

Municipalities need to revisit their budgets on “waste management” and look at the preventative aspect, as well as the reactive component of waste disposal. In other words, spend money on community education, enhanced street sweeping to protect stormwater drains, strengthen the provision of disposal facilities such as litter bins and public skips, invest in recycling facilities even to the point of cross subsidising costs to make recycling more financially stable and sustainable, and build the brand of “sustainable use and management of resources” instead of the negative reactionary philosophy of “waste disposal”. From a corrective point of view, there needs be a stronger deterrent and penalty for littering and miscreants need to be made to understand their wrong doing. (How about 200 hours of community service picking up litter or cleaning fouled-up rivers?)

People must be proud of their community and environmental space and be committed to keeping it clean and attractive. There needs to be “buy-in” from all sectors of Society and an understanding by all of the financial and non-financial benefits of a clean and healthy environment. Section 24 of the South African Constitution  says that, “…everyone has a right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being… “ That won’t just happen, we have to make it happen. So, as a citizen committed to the Constitution,  what are you going to do to maintain that right?

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 36 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2017.

Have you ever said things to yourself like, “It’ll never happen to me”, or “It won’t affect me”, “I can never do that”, or “It doesn’t apply to me”? Do these phrases sometimes come back and bite you?

In the environmental business, we get many issues that do just that. I am not just talking about “the public”. We professionals get caught out as well. It is often on matters where we are entrenched in the detailed knowledge of “the business”. We know it all, we’ve seen it all and we’ve even got the T-shirt…..

One of my more embarrassing experiences in this area was with zero waste. I had worked with many companies and managed to bring down their waste generation to single digits. I then read a book by Gunter Pauli called “Upsizing – The Road to Zero Emissions, More Jobs More Income and No Pollution”. Pauli observed that industry works to priorities such as fast returns on investments and maintaining a focus on the core activities of the company.  He postulated that core activities are not an end in itself, as believed by corporate strategists, but a beginning. There is a need for diversification and cooperation, for more from less, for Upsizing. He said that to operationalise Upsizing, we must stop expecting the earth to produce more but start doing more with what the earth produces. As an example, he quoted agro-forestry  where less than 5% of its output is effectively used and 95% is discarded. If the economic system were to use that 95%, it would be possible to satisfy 20 times more material needs without expecting the earth to produce more. Think about all the extra jobs, more productive industries and reduced waste streams.

This was enough for me to start thinking creatively about all the “lost opportunities” that so many industries were casting aside because, “..their Return On Investment was longer than two years..”  Through such creative thinking, we managed to turn a company around from facing a massive investment in a new multi-million rand water treatment plant, to a change in production sequencing which not only reduced the quantities of waste effluent produced, but also reduced the quantities of potable water utilised.

Some of you may have read my past comments on my own efforts in reducing my water consumption and generating electricity from solar panels. You may have said to yourselves, “…that doesn’t apply to me”, “other people can do that, I can’t.”  I read a number of articles and journals which may give you cause to re-think.

An article in a recent issue of the “Mail & Guardian” suggested that perhaps Eskom electricity was becoming too expensive for many to afford. It was suggested that the poor just stopped paying for electricity and the more affluent classes were beginning to cut back on electricity usage and switch to alternative energy sources such as photo voltaics, wind power and solar geysers.

It was reported that for the first time recently, the UK did not need to use coal to generate Grid electricity  for a full 24 hours, making use of alternate energy sources such as wind power, gas, and photovoltaics, instead. In the same article, it reported that the UK subsidiary of Unilever was sourcing 100% of its electricity requirements from Scottish wind farms.

So, have you done everything that you possibly can to reduce your reliance on grid electricity, cut your wasteful consumption of potable water and reduce the amount of recyclable materials that you put out in your black garbage bags every week?

Just a last word. Strategists are beginning to suggest that petrol and diesel combustion engine cars may stop being produced in Europe as soon as 2025. Can I refer you back to my first paragraph above?

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with over 30 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2017.

How much do we appreciate water?  No, seriously, have you thought about how important clean, fresh water is to you and what it would be like without it? No, of course not, you are used to opening a tap and using as much as you want. It’s cheap, we are told it is one of our constitutional rights, so why should we worry about how much we use or where it comes from?

I am not saying that I am any better or any worse than anyone else but I think the concept of optimising water consumption only really “hit” me, practically (as opposed to academically), after I took the decision to manage my own water usage more effectively. That doesn’t mean I decided to go completely “off the grid” and resort to borehole water and water harvesting, but I looked at how I could use water more optimally. I first began to look at how much water we, as a household, were using.

The daily water readings I took, trying to relate usage to consumption were an initial eye opener. One begins very quickly to realise how much potable water[1] is used for non-potable purposes. The table below shows an interesting breakdown resulting from studies.

Water Use in Households

 Households with Gardens 

(Source: Water – How is it used at home, HE Jacobs, LC Geustyn and BF Loubser, 2005)

I decided to make better use of my rainwater tanks (I had two which were only used for watering gardens and the washing of cars) by connecting them to my toilet water cisterns via a pump (which was, incidentally, solar powered.) The current on-going drought prompted me to add a third tank at the back of the house and link it to the first tank. This meant that I had a total of 4,700 litres of water available for toilet flushing.

Yes, I did consider the option of moving away from a water borne sewage system but I decided it was a little too complex and could be better managed in a two stage change at some point later in time. Change is tough so it is best to tackle it in manageable, bite size chunks.

We introduced a more disciplined toilet flushing regime where we didn’t flush the toilet after every use  and started filling the toilet cisterns, not connected to the rainwater tank, with a bucket. There is nothing better to focus the mind on “cost” than to relate effort and inconvenience to reward. This is much more difficult for the urban dweller. We didn’t compromise on hygiene and cleanliness but realised that a flush was not required after every use.. The consequence of this was that one heavy rainstorm filled the main tank and that full tank lasted us for three months until the next set of rains arrived. (Remember that although our inland dams were not getting rainfall, we on the coast were getting more frequent rains which filled the rainwater tanks.)

So, what we didn’t do was to change the washing machine to a lower water usage model or make use of grey water. Grey water usage requires more thought and more adaption to our plumbing which I was also not ready to face at this time. When the washing machine needs replacing, guess what is going to be one of the top requirements after energy efficiency?

It was quite a surprise to realise that, with a little thought, self-discipline, modification (and, yes, some money), we managed to drop our monthly water usage from over 12 kilolitres[2] down to below 5 kilolitres. OK, so it has little impact upon the wider drought situation but if we all took this on as a community responsibility issue and if thousands of people dropped their water consumption, then we might be in a better position to “weather the drought”…

[1] Potable water is water that has been filtered, cleaned, or treated to meet the standards for drinking water.

[2] One kilolitre is 1,000 litres.

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 35 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2016.