Ecotourism, climate change, peak oil and flying August 10, 2007
Posted by Ralph Pina in : ecotourism , trackback
In an editorial about Angola, the editor of one of my favourite reads, Africa Geographic magazine, opined: “…tourism is more sustainable than oil or diamonds…”. Obvious and self-evident, one would think. But is it?
The oil industry is notorious for sucking the black liquid that fuels the developed world’s economies and lifestyles out of the ground in far-off places, yet leaving the local populations mired in poverty and conflict. The diamond industry has managed to engineer an artificially high monetary value for an essentially valueless “rock” through clever appeal to peoples’ vanity and ruthlessly controlling diamond supply on a global scale. Both resources are non-renewable – all diamonds will have been extracted someday (or the industry cartel will collapse) and global oil production may be fast approaching the backslope of Hubbert’s curve. And both industries leave indelible scars on the earth – witness the destruction of South Africa’s diamond coast and the pollution of the oil-rich Niger delta.
By contrast, nature-based tourism and ecotourism (and variants such as responsible, pro-poor, fair trade and ethical tourism) are touted as the great hopes for sustainable futures, especially in developing countries. Not only are these tourisms seen as means to justify and fund the conservation of biodiversity (in itself a contentious argument), but also as ways of hoisting local communities out of the poverty trap. And, clearly, tourism is non-consumptive and limited in impact if managed sustainably. Relative to global tourism volumes, tourist numbers to Africa are miniscule, but growing. Tourism’s promise is predicated on continuous growth of Africa’s great export: once-in-a-lifetime experiences of wilderness, wildlife and exotic cultures.
If we consider who the tourists that will fuel this economic engine are, then they are mainly the wealthy citizens – with ample leisure time - of the industrialised countries of North America and Western Europe. These countries are a long way from the ecotourism destinations of sub-Saharan Africa and the only feasible means of visiting these places currently is by jet travel – the industry that has mainly been responsible for the explosive growth that has seen tourism become the world’s largest industry over the past few decades.
However, if we accept that (cheap) oil production may peak within the next decade – and this need not be an issue of faith, but of fact – then petroleum, particularly jet fuel, will become scarce and expensive, dealing a body blow to transportation in general, and an end to cheap, leisure, long-haul air travel. Even within Africa, tourism depends on cheap, petroleum-fuelled transport such as coaches, charter ‘planes, mini-buses, game-drive vehicles and more. The maintenance of remote lodges relies on inexpensive and rapid transport of supplies from urban centres. The human food chain itself, especially in a relatively developed country like South Africa, depends on fossil fuel-based pesticides (oil), fertilisers (natural gas), plastic packaging and refrigeration, industrial machinery, irrigation and processing plants that are largely powered by the burning of hydro-carbons. Few lodges are fully self-sufficient and reliant on the produce of local communities. In short, even ecotourism’s ecological footprint could be unsustainably large. And even if local operations were to reduce their footprints to sustainable sizes, simply bringing the tourists from afar would be unsustainable.
The other rider of the apocalypse is global climate change caused by emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), mainly carbon dioxide (CO2), which as we know, is a product of our need to burn fossil fuels for energy. On a simplistic level, we either carry on with business as usual until “peak oil” (and peak coal, peak gas and peak uranium) forces us to fundamentally change our lifestyles and civilisation, or we voluntarily do so earlier on the moral grounds that our descendants deserve to live a quality life on a habitable planet.
Either way, ecotourism in Africa, dependent as it is on foreign tourists who almost without exception fly here, has a big potential problem.
One could argue that air travel’s share of energy use and emissions is relatively small, “only” 5% of CO2 global emissions. The UK government’s Stern Report states that transport emissions account for 14% of all GHG emissions, and of that air travel accounts for 12% (7% international and 5% domestic air travel). Twelve percent of 14% gives one less than 2% of total GHG emissions, although aviation emissions “punch above their weight” because they are emitted at high altitudes. Also, jet aircraft like Boeing’s Dreamliner are becoming more energy efficient. Furthermore, some argue that Africa’s contribution to the problem is so small (but a minute fraction of the 2%) as to be negligible and why should it be denied the opportunity to benefit from its unique natural resources because developed countries have caused the climate crisis?
However, aviation-related CO2 emissions have doubled between 1990 and 2004 and Stern forecasts all aviation emissions to triple between 2005 and 2050. Given that the Kyoto Protocol calls for a reduction of emissions, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has confirmed this imperative, growth in air travel and its emissions seems to be - well - irresponsible. And even though jetliners will become more fuel-efficient, Jevons Paradox tells us that this could simply mean more flying, not less, and consequently a net increase in emissions - that is if “peak oil” does not intervene. Also, no alternative, feasible means of powering a jetliner is anywhere on the horizon as far as I know.
Then there are the so-called “air travel refuseniks” who out of ethical concern will adhere to the injunctions of The Pledge for Climate Protection, one of which asks us to “reject the jet”. I suspect that those who exhibit this level of concern share values with, and could well make up a majority of, potential ecotourists.
As somebody who has decided that my contribution to the subcontinent’s economy and ecology would be to bring eco-travellers and Africa’s nature together, such realisations come as a shock. Although these ideas have been in the back of my mind for a while, knocking around like unwelcome visitors in my house, until recently I had not paid them too much attention.
Now that I have thoroughly depressed myself, I invite you, the reader, to comment and advise…
Comments»
[…] a previous post I referred to “air travel refuseniks” who frown upon leisure air travel on ethical […]
[…] was “as simple as that“? Recently I wrote two posts about ecotourism and flying (here and here) on a personal journey to resolve my dilemma around encouraging long-haul flying through […]