There is much talk among “greens” (and I would generally consider myself to be painted with that colour) that the Covid-19 pandemic may lead to a more environmentally responsible world.
Some of this is encouraged by beautiful images of clear skies over usually polluted cities and wild animals wandering along usually busy streets. Gaylor Montmasson-Clair and Jesse Burton have offered us an example of such thinking (“We can go green if we don’t let the crisis go to waste”, May 27).
They sketch the attractive outlines of a “green recovery” that is “inclusive, job-rich and resilient”. I’d happily buy into such a future. But I can’t — at least not based on their opinion piece.
Their article contains two utterly fatal flaws. The first is that they offer no explanation as to how the laudable ideas they offer will be funded (and no, “unlocking investment from the private sector and households” does not constitute a funding proposal, particularly as companies withhold dividends and people lose their jobs).
The second is that at no point do they explain why SA, now substantially poorer than it was at the beginning of the year, has been granted by this crisis a greater opportunity to “go green”.
I do look forward to a recovery for SA, even if it’s L-shaped. I also hope for a greener future. But wishful thinking is unlikely to get us there.
Gary Cundill
Wilderness
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an e-mail with your comments. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by e-mail to busday@bdfm.co.za. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.