["GH likes shakin' off the dust ever once in a wall."]
[The following column was first published on Oct. 21, 2009, two years (almost to the day) before Mike Seabrook, VP of London Airport, “urged patience, saying the [cargo] terminal [is facing] a global downturn in the cargo business because of the lingering economic downturn.” (Oct. 18, 2011, London Free Press]
Maybe a 19th Century alternative would suit us better
I ended last week’s column (‘Turning London into a cargo hub has a few flaws’) by asking the following: Does shipping cargo to and fro in one of mankind’s most carbon-intensive ways look promising economically?
I asked the question based on my understanding that a goodly percentage of North Americans are reducing their spending (perhaps permanently), saving money and growing more concerned about debt.
As well, many link excessive lifestyles to fossil fuel consumption, carbon emissions and resultant climate change, and think legislation is required to direct large companies to cut their emissions.
Shortly after the column hit the streets a city councillor contacted me.
Upon receiving the call I became as nervous as the proverbial cat.
I thought, it’s either news that a rich and important award is on its way or my tax bill is going to be more than a titch higher next year.
Instead, a positive discussion began in which one of our hard-working councillors (and I mean that sincerely) expressed confidence in the cargo hub, and said that because some cargo will travel fewer miles once it comes into London, a smaller overall carbon footprint will be realized. The councillor also mentioned that fuel efficiencies are likely to occur in the future to bring about more environmental benefit.
I on the other hand, though happy for the discussion, also felt confident that based on our track record, fuel efficiencies will not come very quickly, and positive gains could be negated by over-using the service.
And though happy for any increase in employment that the cargo hub would bring to our region, I wish very strongly - because air travel is the most polluting and carbon-intensive form of transportation - that sustainable, eco-friendly jobs were more the order of the day.
Another issue the councillor and I did not discuss was raised by a reader via email that arrived later the same day.
Rick O. wrote:
“I too wonder about the wisdom of City Hall's plan.
“You briefly mention excessive consumption sustained by cheap oil.
“Well, the era of cheap oil is coming to an end whether we like it or not, and City Hall should give that some thought. Regardless if one believes peak oil production is here already, or still several years off, the fact is the price of oil is going to go up a lot - the present short-term recession induced pull-back in the price of crude notwithstanding.
“So, when fuel prices soar, as they will, airplanes won't. Shipping by air simply won't be viable unless, of course, the cargo you plan to transport has a very high price to weight ratio - like diamonds perhaps.
“Where does that leave us? The economical and environmentally sound way to move people and goods within North America is by rail (assuming peak oil to be at hand and global warming to be a fact).
“So, Gord, I think you should suggest to City Hall that London become a rail hub instead - unless you think they might consider that too 19th century.”
No, Rick. I don’t think rail is too 19th century at all.
And I did say to the councillor that just as the City Hall backed the wrong horse years ago - in my humble opinion - when it got rid of London’s electric trolley system and replaced it with buses that have a healthy appetite for fossil fuels, we may be doing the same again by banking on air cargo system over more sustainable alternatives such as rail and the Great Lakes waterway.
Author’s Note: I also wish I’d thought of Rick’s line - when fuel prices soar... airplanes won't.
***
Please click here to read another exciting episode of “IT STRIKES” Again concerning the supposed cargo hub.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment