That Was The Week That Was: 08 -12 November 2021
A COP out on SAFs? Not if you believe the fossil fuel industry
This week, the week that was, was dominated by the 26th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCC in Glasgow; an intriguing place to stage a conference about global warming, given its reputation for unforgiving cold and even less forgiving rain. An early play in expectation management perhaps?
Nonetheless, many of the great and the good gathered in Scotland to talk about ‘phasing down’ – not please note, ‘phasing out’ coal and other fossil fuels. Not all of the great and the good, but enough to render the final pact mostly meaningless. For aviation, it was business as usual, as SAFs were endorsed as the only viable option and, sadly, ICAO again given a role.
But, interestingly, notwithstanding the inherent inertia of ICAO and the backsliding and off-setting giving ICAO any role might represent, the industry is taking upon themselves to address this problem. They know, even if ICAO does not, that their passengers and real regulators are demanding action.
That puts the fossil fuel companies in something of a bind. First, the single biggest group at the COP were fossil fuel lobbyists, and one can assume that they were not keen on restricting their industry’s access to the right to make profit. At the same time, their customers and their customers’ passengers are telling them to do something more than prevaricate and shift blame. To be fair, it was not clear just how well understood that message was until one went to the Dubai Airshow, held immediately after the COP, in Dubai, obviously.
Chevron, that well-know fossil fuel company, sponsored the lanyards and name badges. Look closely: there it was: the future, according to Chevron for aviation. ‘Chevron’, it said, ‘human energy’. So that is the future: we are going to burn humans to power aeroplanes. What else can this possibly mean? This is not a totally new idea, to be fair. The UK prime minster, talking to children recently (please admire our self-disciple in letting that go uncommented upon) suggested that we should start by burning carnivores, because cows are a large source of methane. But that will propel us only so far. Who next?
I would like to suggest a competition for who to burn next to produce the energy we need. Anti-vaxxers? Collingwood supporters? People that do not let passengers off the train before forcing themselves in? The list of potential energy sources is long and eclectic, but I venture to suggest that we could quickly cluster around a clear group that we, and Chevron, would agree should supply this human energy of which they are placing their faith.
Our industry’s future depends on identifying and burning these groups as a matter of urgency. Suggestions very welcome.