LETTER: How environmentalists missed an educational opportunity

It is always good to have responses to provocations, and David Hallowes did not disappoint (“Environmentalists opposed Medupi from beginning to end”, August 30). He quickly resorted to the traditional insult of the environmentalist, describing my views on geoengineering as the “ultimate hubris of an engineer”.

Hallowes suggests that spraying sulphates into the atmosphere was proposed as an alternative to reducing greenhouse gases. Not true. It was formally proposed at COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009, where I heard Prof Paul Crutzen (Nobel prize winner for fixing the ozone hole) explain how and why sulphate aerosols could help manage global warming. Crutzen was very clear that it was not a permanent solution but rather a measure that might be necessary because societies (not just politicians) would not be able to act fast enough.

Unfortunately, few people turned up to listen to him; although it was a formal COP side-event, it was late in the evening. So the throngs of environmental campaigners had long left the venue to go and party in town, and missed a critical educational opportunity.

Many engineers, particularly in areas such as water and energy, have long understood that our work involves “socioecological systems” (SESs) and effective intervention involves working with peoples’ behaviour as well as providing the technical means to make interventions possible.

That is why we talk about geoengineering: we know political, social and economic processes take time and cannot be fast-tracked. So the technical options of geoengineering are not necessarily the best technical solutions. But some of us humbly submit that, given the inertia of SESs (which can be important to stop silly things from happening) we really should be planning for alternatives such as geoengineering that can, as Hallowes quotes me, “provide vital breathing space while economies and societies are restructured”.

Or perhaps I misunderstand his diatribe about world “leaders” who “have spent the past three decades avoiding action on climate”. To me, that looks like good evidence that planetary survival strategies may indeed have to include measures that give us a little more time.

Mike Muller 
Wits School of Governance

JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by email to letters@businesslive.co.za. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.