It is important that Cabinet ministers who act against the best interests of South Africa and its economy are removed. Too often, they have been allowed to overstay their welcome.

In that respect, the decision by John Steenhuisen to call on President Cyril Ramaphosa to remove Environment Minister Dion George and replace him with Willie Aucamp is a sound and necessary one.

In his role as environment minister, George acted less like a policymaker and more like a zealot. His opposition to fossil fuels ignored South Africa’s basic economic realities. Coal, gas, and oil remain central to the country’s recovery prospects. To stigmatise especially coal while the economy struggles to regain momentum was reckless and ideological. Remember that what is at stake in South Africa is not just the climate but ten-plus million unemployed people, and hence the prospects for the survival of democracy.

Running a country requires understanding that there are payoffs between competing objectives. Pursuing one moral or ideological objective at the cost of all others is not the way to do it.

Failing to understand payoffs was again on display in the minister’s move to ban the use of drones in recreational fishing. Many serious rock-and-surf anglers use drones to drop bait into deep water — a practice that poses no real threat to well-regulated fish stocks. In fact, drone anglers are often among the most committed conservationists of South Africa’s beaches, catching and releasing their fish while supporting coastal economies. Recreational boats take far more fish than drones ever will; was the minister planning to ban those next?

George’s push to outlaw the captive-bred lion trade was another example of pursuing one moral objective at the expense of all others. This newspaper does not like the idea of lions bred for trophy hunting. But we have the common sense to recognise that it is a regulated business that attracts investment, creates jobs, and pays taxes. Animals bred in captivity should live under humane conditions, but banning entire industries because some people dislike them sets a dangerous precedent. If lions today, what next – all game ranching, poultry farming, pig production, or all livestock farming?

Most recently, the minister delayed decisions on hunting quotas for elephant, black rhino, and leopard. Under CITES rules, South Africa is allowed to authorise the hunting and export of up to 150 leopards annually. Experts say the country now has a vast oversupply of leopards – so many, in fact, that they are being “exterminated like vermin” where they threaten the viability of commercial farming. A single regulated leopard hunt can bring more than a million rand into the rural economy.

By dithering, the minister undermined South Africa’s top hunting outfitters and reduced the value of the species they conserve to zero, which is the surest way to ensure they are not conserved at all.

Cabinet ministers must understand the basic principle of payoffs between competing objectives. The environment and conservation are the same. A well-managed resource sustains both wildlife and livelihoods. When ideology blinds officials to that truth, they must be replaced by people who can balance economic and environmental realities.

South Africa’s conservation industry is built on the principle of sustainable commercial utilisation. By threatening that, George put the entire rural economy at risk.