“Environment”, “conservation”, and “development” can be touchy subjects, usually because in any group of individuals, one can get a diverse, wide and emotionally sensitive range of views, opinions, beliefs and doctrines emerging which can be quite polarised. As humans, we are, by nature, diverse and competitive and often struggle to agree or achieve consensus. It is no wonder that preferences can, for example, range from natural grasslands, to a lawn, or an area of green painted concrete.

Human beings are modifiers of the environment. They have developed the abilities, skills and means to change an environment to suit their needs and wants. This is further complicated by the fact that as a species, human beings have multiplied to such a degree that their survival requirements have put the planet under some not inconsiderable strain. We modify land to produce greater quantities of food through mechanisation and monoculture; we cover the earth with concrete to move pesky rainwater away “somewhere else” as quickly as possible; we build massive coal-fired power stations consuming vast quantities of coal so that we can have access to convenient sources of electricity; we build thousands of kilometres of roads cutting swathes through the land so that we can drive quickly from one part of the country to another.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not taking a position on the rights and wrongs of these initiatives. I am merely pointing out that these actions come with both benefits and disadvantages. Everything in life is about balancing benefits with disadvantages. Decisions have to be made which impact people and the environment today, and have consequences for people in the future.

Perhaps we should try and recognise that we cannot achieve perfection in the restoration of some environments to their former (pristine and untouched) status and that we need to acknowledge a modified environment that contains differing elements of natural beauty, form and functionality. It is academic whether this is described as “environmentally responsible development” or “urban development”, or ‘Green Buildings”, or “indigenous”. It is fundamental modification of “natural” environments in such a way that they provide pleasure, joy, relaxation, peace, calm, (add your particular preference) to human beings in their daily lives.

There is always a place for the preservation of undisturbed, naturally changing environments (sometimes described as “Wilderness Areas” or “Conservation Areas”). After all, they may well contain small pieces of DNA which may one day provide the means to save us from disease and pestilence we have yet to experience. The big questions are “How much?”, “Where” and “How much do we need to protect to maintain an ecologically viable area, that will survive in a form that has a future and can be protected from the encroachment of human beings?”

Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the earth cannot exist without us. Life in one form or another has existed on earth for some 3.6 billion years. Human beings (“modern” homo sapiens) have only been on earth for about 200,000 years. Geological succession suggests that the earth is about 4.54 billion years old. Natural and ecological succession has steered the evolution and development of ecosystems and organisms long before the arrival of human beings and will probably continue long after human beings have gone.

The final thought is with regard to human beings themselves. Human population growth continues at a significant rate. People need food, water, shelter and quality of life. Will human beings learn to control their growth as a species within a finite environment or will they continue growing and consuming until the natural forces of the environment find/develop/evolve a mechanism, organism or means to “naturally” control their growth?

 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, 2014.

 “Why should I care about the environment?”

How many times has that question been asked?, I wonder. It comes up frequently at talks and discussions that I am involved in and it is not an easy question to answer. (Try googling the question and see the range of answers that come up…).

Asking the question at a dinner party is one of the quickest ways to create a bunch of angry, polarised guests, particularly if the mix of guests includes any combination of conservationists, animal lovers, bunny huggers, eco-terrorists, climate denialists, fundamental Christians, conservative capitalists, and Free Market proponents.

In my view, the reason for this variability (and animosity) is because people have different views and perspectives on what the environment is and how human beings, affect or are affected by it, causing them to argue at different levels. The other point of argument relates to the extent, boundary or scope of the environment we are talking about. Is it your immediate environment around you (say, the air that you breath), your property, your suburb, your town or city, your Province, your country or the earth in totality? We have varying abilities to affect and be affected by the environment, depending upon the scope.

There are some obvious reasons which relate to immediate environment. For example, a dirty environment around you (land, air and water), can have a detrimental effect on your personal health. Fouling the space that you rely on to exist, generate your food, and provide the air to breath is not a good idea……although that principle may not be as obvious as one might think, considering some of the pollution episodes one reads about in South Africa and other countries like China.

We also have varying abilities to affect our environment. Whilst it is easy to clean up and tidy up your own property, it is very difficult to personally change the air that your breath (other than extremes such as, for example, not burning all of your rubbish in your back garden daily), or clean up the local landfill site.

Practicing care about one’s immediate environment can also save money. Applying “environmentally friendly” practices such as installing a solar geyser, or solar panels to power your security lights, will save money directly by reducing your electricity bill. Whilst separating and recycling household waste may not have a direct financial benefit, it may delay the need for a municipal new landfill site which over the medium and long term will reduce the increases in municipal rates and taxes.

Some of the other reasons often quoted include emotive perspectives such as “It’s my moral obligation”, “It’s the right thing to do”, “for future generations”, “to protect biodiversity” (yes, even that one can be debated at length), “rhinos and polar bears are cute”, and “unnatural stuff causes cancer”.

I am sure that already I have raised the hackles of a number of readers but before you organise the lynching party, stop and think. Maybe we are not understanding the differing perspectives or are making assumptions about others’ perspectives….?

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, 2014.

Over the Festive Season, there are always many lists being generated in various printed and broadcast media, urging folk to follow 10 Green Resolutions, or 5 Recycling Tips or 10 Green Christmas Hints or some similar set of suggested behaviour changes. Most people tend to be a little irritated by them because they are ready-made tips which do not necessarily relate or connect with individuals’ circumstances, capabilities and impacts.

What we really should be doing is taking a step backwards from these end use suggestions and thinking about what we can do before we purchase the items which cause the waste. That can be difficult because many will argue that it is difficult to know where to start and what to consider.

Here are a 3 simple thought triggers to get you started on the journey of materials efficiency and energy and water optimisation (perhaps a fancy way of saying “how to be more environmentally friendly”):-

1. Think about all the materials and substances you use during a day. Ask yourself “Where do they come from and what will happen when these items reach the end of their life?” then ask yourself, “How will these items or their waste remnants be disposed of?”
2. Once you have done this, ask yourself a second question. “Are there alternatives that are easier/cleaner/cheaper/less polluting/smaller quantities/ less toxic?
3. If you cannot find the answers, don’t be afraid to ask your friends, read books, search Google and other Internet sources, contact teachers or colleagues or any other source of information that you can think of.

These actions are the start of a journey. This journey will change your life and will change, as YOU change, over time. As we move through the various stages of our lives, our abilities to do things and influence the wider good within our community, changes. By understanding where we are on our individual journeys, we can continue the journey within our capacities, capabilities and understanding. This is the way in which each and every one of us can contribute to the good of our Communities, the space and environment we depend upon and live in, and improve our Society in general. (Oh and by the way, this often also saves money which is an added benefit and motivation!)

If the tasks seem overwhelming and it appears that there is just too much to do, prioritise your tasks, start small and tackle simple tasks and easy actions. Remember the answer to the legendary question, “How do you eat an elephant?….answer – One bite at a time.

The tasks discussed above are not easy. You may not have all the information that you need to answer the questions and make the judgements. You thus need to find out, explore, research and understand. Understanding is the key to sustainability of materials and sustainability of actions. If we do not understand why actions and alternative courses of action are necessary, we will never do them. To lump everyone together into a “one size fits all” solution is unlikely to work. If everyone tackles their own tasks within their own capabilities, there is a greater chance that they will continue to undertake the tasks regularly and as a part of their everyday lives.

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, 2013.

Does sustainable living come naturally to human beings?  I was sitting on a long haul flight recently, (I spend a great deal of time on these types of flights and yes, I know, my carbon footprint must be enormous…) looking at the plastic supper tray in front of me, thinking about the enormous amounts of effort, energy and resources used to put this together, the equally enormous wastes involved when the remnants are disposed of, and then I multiplied this by the millions of people who routinely fly long distances around the world.

Flying is just one part of the whole picture. Next thing to do is to apply your mind to the fast food business. Most of us, at some time or other, make use of the “convenience” of fast foods, especially when we are feeling lazy or just cannot face standing in the kitchen to cook. Think about the packaging involved in fast food….by design, it is costly because it must keep the food hot, copy the role of plates, come with disposable plastic utensils, and be covered in costly printing and fancy, expensive design to reinforce the brand….which is often what makes us subconsciously buy it through the millions spent in subliminal advertising, reinforcing our “need” to purchase the product.

What about the enormous amounts of money, fuel, and carbon that is used to fly out-of-season products around the world so that we can have these “fresh” products all the year around?  When British lamb is out of season, New Zealand lamb is imported to the UK and in New Zealand, when their lamb is out of season, they import British lamb. (It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out who gets the better end out of that deal, does it?)

Try something else out. The next time you buy your loved one(s) a box of chocolates, count how many different layers of packaging there are. Depending upon how generous or not you are with the chocolates, that number could vary between five and ten layers. How many of those are REALLY necessary?  You can try the same exercise on other products you use and you will see that practicality is not always the best driver of design….and you are the one paying for all of this too!

Have I answered my opening question?  Yes, of course I have and we all knew what the answer would be. No, sustainable living does not come naturally to human beings because we continue to live in a Society that is driven by economic growth, driven by consumerism, and driven by consumption for the sake of consumption. We can talk about sustainability, sustainable living and sustainable development but underlying the key success factors to achieve this is a fundamental change in Society’s priorities. Environmental economics has started to make changes in thinking but the heart of our economic philosophies are still the drive to make financial profit. Until Society can make a major mind shift in everything to do with our monetary system, it is going to take a long, long time before we can say with our hands on our hearts, “Sustainable living comes naturally to human beings.”

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, 2013.

Have you ever thought to yourself, “I’m only one person, I can never get this done/changed/fixed?” Sometimes, the sheer, seemingly, hopelessness of a situation is overwhelming and results in endeavours and tasks never even getting started.

Often, the inspiration of what others can do, or have been able to achieve, can provide the nudge to reconsider paths of action and solutions.

I can think of two linked examples which provide some food for thought. The first one is human organisation. Human beings have developed the power to think, plan and organise themselves and their actions which leave one breathless in wonder. Think of the achievements of the Egyptians who with only rudimentary tools, intellect and the sweat of thousands of persons, built pyramids hundreds of metres high, weighing thousands and thousands of tons. Our modern day thinking would default to imagining vast machines, cranes, heavy trucks and other steel devices to achieve such a result. Meanwhile the Egyptians used very basic tools and techniques and adapted them to the circumstances. They used ramps, leverage, rollers, balance and other simple techniques to achieve massive and awe-inspiring results.

As a young community worker operating in a Soweto community in the early 1980’s (this was before cell phones, smart phones, Internet-on-the-go and SMSs), I could never understand how news of a meeting to be held on one side of Soweto could be successfully communicated to the entire city in hours, without the single use of an electronic communication device. The answer was simple – organised, word-of-mouth communication via, blocks, streets, suburbs, areas, and regions. Simple or complex messages could be conveyed to many people over vast distances by using word-of-mouth and human organisation.

The second example is Nature (of which, incidentally, we as humans are a part). Nature has evolved over billions of years and has a practical solution to every problem we have ever conceived. (It may be difficult to actually FIND that solution but it is there, somewhere!) There are plenty of examples which illustrate how small or large problems can be tackled by copying Nature. (If you want to know more, Google “Biomimicry”.) The complex and amazing social organisation and structuring of ant and termite colonies is a good example of optimal design for such community and survival issues as air-conditioning, food supply, waste disposal, security, population control, construction engineering, water supply and cooperative effort. The simple principle of Velcro comes from a technique used by seeds to hook themselves onto animals to spread species progeny beyond its source area.

As human beings, we waste enormous quantities of energy and effort on trying to do things for which there are clear and simple answers readily available in our back gardens, through cooperative communication and in libraries and publications. We live an oppressive, pressurised and busy lifestyle that prevents us from “thinking before we do”. The age of instant gratification, optimal electronic communication and the demand for instant decision-making is stopping us from using the most fundamental of preparatory actions, “Stop, think, research, plan, do”.

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

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2012.

The National Treasury has published a Carbon Offsets Paper for public comment. The paper outlines proposals for a carbon offset scheme that will enable businesses to lower their carbon tax liability and make investments that will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

This document needs to be read in conjunction with the “Carbon Tax Policy Paper: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and facilitating the transition to a green economy” which was released for comment in May 2013. The Finance Minster announced during his recent Budget Speech that the plans to introduce a carbon tax in South Africa would be delayed until 2016.

Carbon Offsets[1] will enable firms to cost-effectively lower their carbon tax liability. They will also incentivise investment in least-cost mitigation options in the country, driving investment in GHG mitigation projects that deliver carbon emissions reduction at a lower cost than the carbon tax.

In order to be awarded a tradable emissions reduction credit under one of the four different carbon offset standards (Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), Gold Standard (GS) and Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard (CCBS)), the principles of “additionality”, “permanence”, and “real” are critical in being included and thus to ensure the credibility of the carbon offset projects.

Treasury’s initial analysis suggests that the development and adoption of an eligible project methodology could focus on the following areas:-

• Energy and Energy Efficiency
• Transport
• Agriculture, forestry and other land uses, and
• Waste

The Paper is available on the Treasury website and written comments should be submitted to Peter Janoska, email:- [email protected],  by the close of business on 30 June 2014.