Much of the air industry appears to be wrapping itself snuggly in the illusionary blanket of environmental friendliness. Discretely pointing an accusatory fi nger at their distant cousins on the high seas, air industry execs proudly stake their green claim of only contributing 2 per cent of global CO₂ emissions – only athird of their aquatic cousins.
Who is the worst polluter is really not the point – although it needs to be stated clearly for the record that pound-for-pound shipping is more earth friendly when considering the shear volume ofcargo that gets moved by water.
But back to the point at hand. It’s hard to avoid the distinct impression that the air industry has its head in the clouds. Time and again I hear how the air industry is being picked on by the green meanies of environmentalism, merciless journalists andpoliticising bureaucrats.
Th e industry needs a reality check: No. 1, it is a polluter that contributes to climate change; and No. 2, it must become much more savvy with the concepts and linguafranca of climate change, such as “carbon footprints” and “food miles,” for instance.
The reason carriers, and in particular cargo carriers, should care can be seen in the recent debacle in the UK over air-freighted organic fruit and vegetables from Africa. In a nutshell, the UK’s leading organic inspectors – the Soil Association – very nearly accepted calls for an all-out ban on air-freighted organic food over concerns about the climate change impact of food being fl own long distances, otherwise known as food miles.
Some 80 per cent of the UK’s organic food comes from countries including Egypt, Kenya, Ghana, Zambia and Morocco. Th e resultant ‘food miles’ account for 11 per cent of CO₂ emissions from UK food transport, according to the UK government. Various United Nations bodies pointed out in a position paper that while air freight may burn more fuel than domestic sourcing, farm production in developing countriesuses much less energy.
In the end the Soil Association hedged its bet and said it would not ban air-freighted produce, but added: “Our aim is to minimise air freight by encouraging alternatives,such as other forms of shipping, and creating local organic markets.”
Th e intensive debate highlighted a couple of pertinent issues. First, the entire climate change issue is complicated and not fully understood and second, the general publichas become increasingly aware and aggressive on the issue.
In the end it’s up to the air industry to come to grips with this new environment, including doing its part to reduce its carbon footprint, regardless of where it stands vis-à-vis other industries, and it must take responsibility for its pollution and engagein meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders.
As an offi cial from the Soil Association noted, this organic episode is “the thin end of the wedge – there is a wider issue here for cargo moving by air,” he added.“Th is may be this organic association today, but in the future it might be a big groupasking why this or that product has to be sourced on the other side of the world,” andthat does not bode well for air cargo carriers. – Donald Urquhart