Seychelles is scapegoat for environmental alarmists
German environmentalists have decided to pick on the Seychelles tourism industry as a scapegoat in their effort to raise alarm against air travel as man’s contribution towards global warming.
One of their latest campaigns is being launched in Germany, Europe’s most populous state and biggest single market. The campaign goes “Sylt instead of Seychelles”, referring to a fragile German North Sea island with an overstretched and environmentally damaging tourism industry. Tourism and climate expert Dr Manfred Stock developed the slogan and told the daily newspaper ‘Berliner Zeitung’ that consumers worrying about global warming should avoid intercontinental flights and rather take the train to a German or European destination.
The much-quoted researcher is in line with policies promoted by Germany’s Federal Environment Agency (UBA). UBA President Dr Andreas Troge has made the climate change issue his agency’s foremost focus, and one of the ways consumers could “do something on your own” is by changing their travel behaviour, UBA says. A single traveller flying to an intercontinental destination produces more than five tonnes of CO2, he told the German press, while someone travelling by train within Germany only had the emission of ten of kilograms of CO2 to account for.
Of the 82,000 tourists that have come to Seychelles since the beginning of the year, over 70,000 were from Europe. Ten percent of all our tourists so far this year come from Germany. If they all follow the environmentalist exhortation to reduce their so-called carbon footprint by not taking long haul holidays, the economy of Seychelles would be devastated.
The irony is that here in Seychelles, the government’s new tourism focus is on eco-tourism, as is much of Africa. The idea is to search for modes that can guarantee the protection and good management of wildlife and habitats and local community development based on the new tourism revenues. No measure in African history has proven so successful in stopping tree cutting and forest conservation than prospects of tourism revenues. In Gabon and Madagascar, vast landscapes have been protected to be able to promote eco-tourism according to experts. Now these destinations, like the Seychelles are demonised as anti-environmental by European environmentalist “experts”.
But whilst for us in Seychelles tourism is our most important export, the European left is also targeting African exports of fresh fruits, vegetables and flowers to Europe. These products can only be brought to market fresh and therefore have to be air freighted. Over the last decade, African agricultural products are increasingly admitted into the protectionist European market, even when also produced in Europe. This includes beef from Namibia and Botswana, fresh flowers, fruit and vegetables from Kenya and even processed food products from South Africa and Ghana.
Already in 2003, airlifted baby carrots and garden peas from South Africa were highlighted in energy budgets of imported foods. For carrots, “it will have taken 68 calories of energy in the form of fuel to air freight each calorie of carrot energy,” while “fresh peas require approximately two and half times the energy to produce, package and distribute as those sourced locally,” the British daily ‘Guardian’ reported.
In efforts to make quick and symbolic gains in Europe’s otherwise failed policies to curb gas emissions, environmental and anti-globalisation politicians are aiming at Africa’s few economic success stories. Campaigns to buy locally produced food and travel to local destinations particularly hit out against African products.
The news of the latest antics of the European left is not only devastating for Seychelles, but also comes as a major embarrassment to President Michel and his party the SPPF, after having pandered to the left wing ideologues populating the environmentalist movement in Europe in order to obtain development funds from European governments under the guise of environmental protection.
