THE enduring subtleties of the tragedy called apartheid continue to churn out wide-sweeping and gratuitous lessons. The most prominent of these is the utilitarian deployment of fear as the foundational basis for propaganda, wherein the masses freely gouge for their own deception.

Eric Hoffer was right. Propaganda does not deceive people. It just helps them deceive themselves.

Examples abound and the mind boggles. For apartheid to enjoy some support, there ought to be ‘swart gevaar’ with its myriad of connotations ranging from the comical to bloodthirsty and gory violence. On the basis of that fear, any version of deception and propagandised messaging could be promoted.

As a deduction of that syllogism and from the punted fear of mass deaths, the Covid yarn was spun with reckless abandon, especially exploiting the so-called red fear from China, or Wuhan to be exact.

Nothing, however, could even remotely compete against the fear of total human extinction, which is always equated with the end of time. Against this fear, a number of postulates have developed, most of whom seek to identify the target of their source of danger. Carbon dioxide!

Carbon dioxide, the most important chemical element that undergirds the continuum of the human project, has been corralled and claimed for the exclusive purview of the laboratory, and therein suffused with the arcane nomenclature of the scientist.

It is almost as if we are prevented from weighing in on the broader socio-economic implications of its widespread availability. And that’s just the first step. It is not imponderable that given its valuable multiplicity of uses, some powerful countries will prevent others in the developing world from its technical usage, in the same way as uranium is naturally occurring, but only a select handful of countries have suffered its conversion into nuclear technology.

Donald Trump, through the utility of his executive orders, has prevented the grant of a billion dollars to South Africa designated for energy transition. South Africa in general, or that section of it in particular that considers itself America’s favourite child, invoked its cry-baby status. Feeling disinherited from a hereditament they believe is deservedly theirs, the decibels of wailing have become disturbingly louder.

Blinded by the welling of their own crocodile tears, the fanatical proponents of this romanticism had to convince themselves that such a patriotic act of national self-interest by the US must, as of necessity, be another sign of punishing South Africa.

Notwithstanding the demerits or otherwise of their perturbation, the funding of the demise of the role of carbon dioxide seems uninteresting, if not downright impractical, for the Trump administration. There are 276 million registered vehicles in the United States, with only 5% accounting for the penetration rate of electronic vehicles year on year.

That requires a lot of oil to keep them on the road. Funding tentative programmes that would lead to America’s inability to sustain its hydrocarbon economy tantamounts to intellectual hara-kiri.

South Africa’s major preoccupation has always been to present a façade that they are in synchronised rhythm with the western powers — a foolish self-delusion indeed. It is worth emphasising that China, the most economically and infrastructurally advanced among developing countries, nominated 2060 as the year they would be ready for energy transition. India, the most populous country on earth, opted for 2070.

It defies conventional logic why South Africa, with the highest level of unemployment in economies of comparable size and touted as the most unequal country in the world, would rather transition immediately! And by the way, transitioning where to?

To be sure, any dabbling on the subject of carbon dioxide from whatever angle on the most privatised debate in the world will ineluctably result in the most violent reaction from the richest and well-funded green lobby. Ownership of the carbon molecule and its grossly perverted narrative has been so captured that anyone who posits anything different from the curated script, is a climate denialist.

How many trees are there in South Africa? Which ones consume C12 carbon isotopes as opposed to those that consume C13? How many trees are indigenous, and how many are alien? In their indigeneity, how much carbon dioxide is each tree genetically programmed to consume per day? How much carbon dioxide does all the grass in South Africa consume?

Subtracted from the amount of carbon dioxide South Africa generates, what is the balance of the amount after the consumption is deducted from the production volumes, which the subject of carbon dioxide reduction must be confined to?

In the carbon dioxide culpability for the climate unpredictability, only the production numbers are accentuated. The corresponding numbers of consumption are notoriously ignored.

The crisis of the Republic is that for all its effervescent patriotism, unlike at the Stats SA, there is no public agency acting as a central repository to hold core environmental data easily accessible to the public. Reliance, for the most part, and exclusive use of data owned by third parties bought and paid for by bigger international lobby groups compromise the integrity of the data propriety we draw conclusions from, and in tandem, endangers our collective national security.

What this means is that South Africa’s biggest policy weakness is that for all its intrusive bureaucratic reach, it has no access to reliable environmental data. It cannot answer the fundamental question as to how much carbon dioxide the country requires to feed 62 million people sustainably, including an unnamed number of diverse animals, insects, bouquets of desert and free-blooming brilliant flora, shoals of fish, and other aquatic dwellers.

If these numbers exist, where can they be found whose integrity can be relied upon without controversy? And if not, how could the country commit to the specific quotas in the Paris Climate Accord with prescience and conviction?

All is not lost, however. Carbon dioxide is a valuable waste product. It is the only molecule that can be utilised to produce methanol, a product that could conveniently consume all the carbon dioxide in excess production, notwithstanding the numerical value of the isotope, and provide a sustainable supply for a stable electricity grid.

The conversion of buses on our roads for methanol use, including Transnet trains, school mass transit, clinics, stadia, and all government facilities, could cost far less than the cumulative bill of loadshedding. The International Maritime Organisation has already declared that all oceangoing vessels should start using methanol as fuel commencing on January 1, 2020.

And just to be certain, with mere rudimentary AI capabilities and drone monitoring, all the electricity for the traffic lights, street lights, airports, and police stations should be using methanol-derived energy.

The Trump administration's belief in hydrocarbons derives from a deep revulsion of Reagan’s strategy that if you do not agree with science, buy your own scientists to get the results you desire.

America has ordered the climate scientists alright. And Trump refuses to pay.

* Ambssador Bheki Gila is a Barrister-at-Law. The views expressed here are his own.

** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL.

environmental policy

Trump’s blocking of the energy transition grant to South Africa, the context and implications