It is time for the travel industry – and the world at large – to drop the climate change, climate emergency, and climate transition framing. We should, instead, be committed to practical environmental steps and the inclusion of local communities – on their terms.
Developing economies in Asia, Africa and Latin America are correct to have a more enlightened and practical set of priorities that downplays Net Zero, namely: economic growth and the improvement of infrastructure, education, health, easy access to mobile networks and broadband, more transparent law and order, and meaningful steps to counter corruption.
If these goals can be pursued with sympathy and respect for the natural environment, biodiversity and community wellbeing, all the better. However, as in politics as in life, there are no perfect solutions, only trade offs.
But in the West, we have created a climate ‘emergency’ narrative that is – frankly – a massive self harming and indulgent luxury belief driven by a mixture of good intentions and – unfortunately – ideology, political expediency, virtue signalling and hypocrisy.
It is sad that Net Zero advocates have the arrogance to foist these priorities on people in developing economies. A shameful example is how a lot of Western governments’ developmental aid to poor countries is now conditional on it furthering the ‘climate’ agenda instead of genuine development.
As Bjorn Lomborg shows, a much better ROI and quality of life for ordinary people in emerging economies can be achieved by investing in malaria and tuberculosis prevention, rural infrastructure, access to education, digital phone networks and the like.
The debate is not settled
I am not a climate ‘denier’. The world is warming. Some of that warming might be due to carbon from fossil fuel emissions. Or the warming may be happening for other reasons. Any man made contribution to the manageable warming we are witnessing may be 5%, 50% or 95%. We simply don’t know. The debate is not settled – although climate activists want you to believe that it is.
And please note: there is no statistically significant increase in severe weather events. However, in the last 100 years there has been a decrease of about 98% in human casualties from severe weather events (even though the world’s population has risen from two to eight billion in the same period). This is due to the benefits of massive economic development, more accurate weather forecasting, stricter planning controls, better building construction, better drainage and emergency responses - and access to affordable energy, most of it powered by fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels have powered the modern global economy and lifted billions out of poverty. The internal combustion engine and jet engine will one day be superseded by superior technologies. That new technology is not ready yet – at scale and at a price that is operationally viable. And no amount of market distorting legislation, subsidies, propaganda, shaming or punitive penalties will magically make it so.
Unfortunately, the Net Zero lobby is acting as if green technology is ready, affordable and scalable across the grid for ordinary people and businesses. It is not.
It is therefore time for sensible environmentalists to decouple themselves from the CO2-driven climate change agenda. Instead we should recalibrate towards objectives such as biodiversity, cleaner rivers, reduced waste, heightened resource efficiency, and cleaner air.
No perfect solutions, only trade offs
Yes, cleaner air. There is no contradiction here (only trade offs). My position is that we should all be supportive of reducing emissions and embracing, for example, electric vehicles as and when the technology is available, the grid infrastructure is in place, and pricing reasonable.
But we’re not there yet. Indeed, we’re very far from it. (That said, I think it makes sense, for example, for cities to run electric bus fleets which are quiet, clean, their journey distances limited and known in advance; and they have easy access to overnight battery chargers at the depot.)
In tourism and any industry – and society at large – good environmentalism should be by the people, for the people. Not a top down elitist agenda deaf to the needs and desires of ordinary citizens around the world, including less well off people in highly developed economies.
I am therefore seeking to work with people, organisations and companies who are climate realists and environmentalists who, first and foremost, listen to communities, not self-appointed, well-funded activists and civic groups claiming to speak on behalf of the people.
I want to work with organisations that are committed to the flourishing of mankind through development – truly responsible development allied to sensible environmentalism and the promotion of biodiversity, not the self harming Net Zero agenda.
I realise these opinions may make me unpopular in some quarters. I would like to say I don’t care. But I do. That’s why I’m speaking out – or should I say, ‘coming out’?
I’m interested to hear your opinion. (Head over to my 3 Februray post on LinkedIn for that.)
Comments