Hong Kong’s aviation SAF transition stalls: How colonial-era infrastructure and mainland-state capitalism block equitable decarbonisation
Original framing: “Cathay calls on Hong Kong to map out long-term sustainable fuel plan beyond 2030” — South China Morning Post
The **trickster** in this narrative is the **illusion of ‘sustainable’ aviation**—a myth that allows Hong Kong’s elite to maintain their carbon-intensive lifestyles while appearing progressive. Like **Anansi’s spider**, who weaves tales to trap the greedy, Cathay Pacific’s call for SAF is a **clever diversion**: it shifts blame from **overflight** to **fuel type**, from **corporate profit** to **technological innovation**, and from **colonial infrastructure** to **market solutions**. The **Greater Bay Area’s proposed subsidies** are another trickster move—echoing **Eshu’s** (Yoruba trickster) ability to turn gifts into curses, as they risk **locking Hong Kong into a high-emission future** under the guise of ‘green’ capitalism. The real disruption would come from **naming this game**: exposing how SAF is the **aviation industry’s get-out-of-jail-free card**, much like **Hermes’ caduceus**—a symbol of healing that also brings deception.
Hong Kong’s SAF debate is not just about fuel—it’s a **microcosm of Asia’s ‘green growth’ paradox**, where elite-led technological fixes mask deeper structural failures.
The colonial and state-capitalist roots of Hong Kong’s aviation sector create a **carbon lock-in** that SAF alone cannot break, while the absence of Indigenous consultation, worker protections, and demand-side policies reveals a **neoliberal climate agenda** prioritising corporate and state interests over ecological limits. Cross-cultural comparisons—from Japan’s mobility justice movements to Pacific Islander resistance to biofuel land grabs—show that **SAF adoption without systemic change risks repeating the mistakes of past ‘green’ industrial projects**, where symbolic gestures (like subsidies) obscure continued extraction. The trickster here is the **myth of ‘sustainable aviation’**, a narrative that allows Hong Kong’s elite to maintain their global mobility while appearing progressive. True solutions require **three disruptors**: **1) Decolonising policy** via Indigenous-led alternatives, **2) Just transition** for aviation workers, and **3) Demand reduction** through mobility justice campaigns—each addressing a different layer of the systemic failure. Without these, SAF will remain a **distraction**, not a transformation.