Kunle Adeyanju, a Nigerian, recently rode a motorcycle from London to Lagos to raise polio awareness and donations. After trudging through more than 13,000 kilometres (8,000 miles) over 13 nations, the 44-year-old left London on April 19 and landed in Lagos, Nigeria’s commercial capital on May 29.
He aimed to raise funds for Rotary International’s fight against polio, which remains a threat in Africa despite it being eradicated in 2020. A truly applaudable feat and noble cause, we must say. This was well received and celebrated by the press and the general public.
A question however boggling our minds is — What if Kunle Adeyanju rode an electric motorcycle?
We believe this would have done a lot to add to the credence of electric mobility and further promote awareness of electric mobility and its impact on the environment.
Electric mobility on its own is a humanitarian cause as it directly impacts the future of our environment, the earth — our home. This is not to diminish or misappropriate other humanitarian causes. But what if there was a collaboration between other humanitarian causes, say — the rescue of migrant children and e-mobility? How much more reach would this get? And how the much better impact would this have on the environment?
Questions to ponder on.
According to the RMRP 2022 Guidance Humanitarian Transport and Environment, local or day-to-day humanitarian transport provides an opportunity to raise awareness since there will typically be few passengers in the car, journeys are more likely to be accompanied by agency workers, and there is a better opportunity to interact. As a result, this is an opportunity to promote awareness about the country’s environmental behaviour, waste management, environmental health, and to detect important problems. Are the persons being transported, for example, aware of substantial incidences of deforestation due to a reliance on fossil fuels? Are they aware of circumstances when persons of concern are engaged in illicit environmental economies? Is the utilization of environmental variables an element of xenophobic discourse?
An excerpt from the guide reads thus “…transport is a space for contact with affected populations and agencies can make use of the opportunity and take statistics on the number of applicable times that transport is used as an opportunity for awareness-raising”.
It should be known that humanitarian causes and transport have an environmental footprint. However measuring the emissions of humanitarian transport is not recommended, according to the guide. Instead, agencies should have the flexibility to be able to implement cleaner alternatives currently and in future. However, if efficient vehicles are used (e.g. electric transport), make a point of showcasing this in public communications. How about electric mobility being adopted by these causes to further spread the switch?
In another twist, MAX for instance has collaborated with several humanitarian causes over the years. Recent of which is the sponsoring of the education of children through KNOSK N100-a-day charity school — an organisation that bridges the gap of education for underprivileged children. There is common ground between MAX and KNOSK; both organisations are poised to tend to the need to provide financial prosperity for people who would ordinarily be cut off — fighting poverty through sustainable empowerment cycles.
Conclusively, in the strife for a cleaner earth and safer environment, more ground needs to be covered and the use of ethically sound vehicles like humanitarian causes can help.
