The majority of St Francis residents, including myself, are obviously very concerned about the impact a nuclear power station at Thuyspunt will have on our environment, and on our lifestyle.
This because it would burst our comfortable bubble bringing in “that” from which most of us have tried to escape.
“That” being the dystopia and symptoms of societal collapse which exist at economic growth points.
This is rather ironic as economic growth is considered the holy grail of our economic system and hope for the future?
Furthermore, St Francis residents despair as there are probably no more St Francis’s to escape to as “progress”, with development at the forefront, has left few, if any, naturally beautiful places unspoilt.
But why do we need another power station and why nuclear?
This is primarily not because of a supply issue, but because of an insatiable demand by humans for energy to ensure growth and “progress” in terms of our economic system and programmed beliefs.
Nuclear is now preferred because of the immense carbon footprint associated with fossil fuel use.
Many people do not, however, believe that use of fossil fuels creates a problem but maybe this is because the following figures are not made common knowledge.
Globally, we jointly consume 240,000 tons of coal, and 114,000 cubic metres of gas to which we must add 90-million barrels of oil (sufficient barrels, which when placed touching, will more than encircle the Earth at the equator).
These are not annual figures, but daily figures.
To believe that the extraction, processing and distribution of this amount of energy, before even considering the emissions, is not problematic, requires Trumpian scale denial.
Of further concern is that even though renewable energy use is increasing, fossil fuel use continues to rise.
Renewable energy itself is also not totally natural as industrial processes are involved.
However, there is an even worse side effect to the availability of industrial energy, a factor which is not alluded to, and that is that the availability of industrial energy has altered the natural carrying capacity of our land as regards human populations.
So much so that humans and domestic animals now constitute 96% of all mammals on the planet.
Is this a problem? Yes, because it destroys the critical biodiversity necessary for life on our planet to survive.
Whereas a place like St Francis may have supported 100 Strandlopers sustainably 10,000 years ago, it now carries more than 10,000 people relying on industrially produced energy for construction, transport, food, cooling, heating, and so much more. (CO2 emissions associated with home building alone can amount to as much as 45,000 litres per square metre).
Domestic animals also only serve humans and humans presently only extract from the planet and make no known net positive contribution.
It is difficult to comprehend how the most intelligent species on Earth can determine the contribution to biodiversity made by most other species but does not even try to figure out what our species was possibly created for?
So, while Eskom is looking for a means to increase energy availability by about 15% to secure base load supply for economic growth, could they not look at places other than Thyspunt to establish a power station, somewhere where a vibrant economy does not already exist?
Or, would a more responsible domestic market, opposed to nuclear energy, including St Francis residents, be prepared to reduce their energy demands by 15%?
Would Eskom be prepared to reduce its own demands by reducing its bloated labour force by 15%?
The answer unfortunately is likely to be that this is all crazy talk as humans tend to avoid the cognitive dissonance associated with facing the truth.
We have confused standard of living and status with quality of life, all of which are going to tumble, if we don’t face reality very soon.
• Clive Horlock, Sansense, provider of immersive experiences with the San people in the Kalahari of Botswana with specific focus on how they managed to survive for tens of thousands of years