“IT STRIKES” Again: Turning London into a cargo hub has a few flaws

["Count on me to shake the dust off once in awhile."]

[The following column appeared October 14, 2009, almost two years ago to the day before a news clip containing an update about London airport’s cargo terminal and its failing grade. Hey, sometimes I get it right. gah]

Headline - Turning London into a cargo hub has a few flaws

That’s right. You heard it here first.

I’m not sure if City Hall’s plans to turn London’s airport into a cargo gateway at a cost of $11,000,000 has long-term legs.

Or wings.

Some city councillors and business leaders will wonder, why don’t I just sit still, be quiet and let the experts get on with the job?

For three reasons.

First, the ‘sit still, be quiet’ approach didn’t work for me while a kid at home or a student in public school and university after I discovered I learned more by asking questions, even if I just blurted them out. And today I have a few questions about an air cargo hub.

Next, I can’t sit still about our economy - and never very quietly - especially after what I learned recently and mentioned in last week’s column (Maybe a ‘zero growth economy’ shouldn’t really be a shock).

For example, many Canadian consumers (some of them surely right here in London) are worried about their wages and pensions and are reducing their spending on many types of material goods (ergo cargo) in their desire to save money and clear up their debt load.

If polls out of the US can be trusted (I think they can be), the new age of frugality may last for months and months. If US consumer spending (which makes up about 70 per cent of the American economy) continues to decline and their unemployment figures continue to climb (9.8 per cent last month, numbers not seen since 1983) they will soon match our own and their great and mighty recession might last for years and years.

With our chief trading partner in such dire straits, does that bode well for a cargo-based economy in London? Unless, of course, it’s cargo people really, really need, e.g. small amounts of food, clothing, basic household supplies and hockey pucks. (Winter’s coming, eh, and my 50-plus team loses about four per week).

Finally, not only are North Americans learning they can’t live forever or much longer beyond their means, they’re learning there are other worries larger than pension shortfalls and more frightening costs to unlimited production and consumption than unmanageable debt.

Large numbers of North Americans are now joining the dots between an excessive lifestyle and fossil fuel consumption and the production of pollution and carbon and climate change.

According to the book The Suicidal Planet, surveys reveal that two-thirds of the US population ‘are mostly or completely convinced by scientific consensus on global warming and the causal effect of carbon dioxide emissions. Only 6 per cent now think that it is not a problem requiring action. Polls also show that the great majority now subscribe to the view that greenhouse gas emissions should be limited and say they would support legislation requiring large companies to cut their emissions.’

As well, ‘three-quarters consider that doing nothing about climate change is irresponsible.’

I’m sure many Canadians feel the same way and will keep their wallets in their pockets rather than continue to buy into excessive consumption as we’ve done for far too many years, thanks in large part to the availability of cheap oil.

In other words, does shipping cargo (whatever it is) to and fro in one of mankind’s most carbon-intensive ways look promising economically?

Author’s note - re The Suicidal Planet by Mayer Hillman: I’m only half done but it looks more like a homicide to me.

***

Please click here to read another exciting episode (How could it not be?) of “IT STRIKES” Again by G. Harrison.

.