The Sustainable Jet Fuel Hoax

by Robert McGarvey

Sustainable jet fuel is a wonderful idea. US and European carriers all say they will reach zero carbon emission by 2050 and that hinges on use of lots of sustainable fuel. This matters in a world of climate change and, yes, air travel contributes just 2.5% of carbon emissions but it’s 2.5% that may not be necessary, both because a lot of business air travel is absolutely pointless (as many big companies realized during the pandemic) but also because there may be ways to drive emissions down to that zero goal.

Just listen to the carriers. Everybody in commercial aviation talks a good game when it comes to net zero carbon. But words are cheap.

The realities, in Europe and the US, are starkly different.

Tune into what is now happening in Europe where the European Commission is holding the feet of 20 carriers to the fires, saying they are simply greenwashing their actions.

Europe by the way has set ambitious goals regarding aviation and sustainability. Per POLITICO, “By 2025, 2 percent of the fuel powering aircraft in the EU has to be green, rising to 5 percent in 2030, and then increasing every five years to 70 percent in 2050. Airplanes currently use only a tiny amount of SAF, which is much more expensive than kerosene.”

It’s a fact that sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) – which is made out of things that aren’t petroleum – would dramatically reduce carbon emissions but there just isn’t much of it. In 2022 the US produced 1.8 million gallons of SAF, not even 0.1% of fuel used that year, a year where air travel in the US remained deflated by Covid fears. SAF also costs around 10X more than traditional jet fuels and, sure, as production scales prices will come down but nobody knows by how much.

Even so, all the major European carriers are busily defending their environmental efforts. Which are? Read the Politico piece which neatly sums up what they say they are doing. (Hint: they aren’t doing much substantive beyond talking.)

The upshot: European consumer groups now say the carriers are simply fibbing about their environment gains. The European Consumer Organization (BECU) has been especially pointed in its criticisms. Said BECU’s director general, Monique Goyens, “It is unacceptable that airlines have freely lured consumers into offsetting their flight’s emissions, sometimes at a high price. One can never be sure that the trees planted to compensate a flight’s high emissions will capture the carbon back into the ground – if they are planted at all…. Greenwashing is no longer acceptable, and the fact that aviation is one of the most highly polluting sectors makes it even more intolerable. Today’s crack down on greenwashing is encouraging at a time when consumers are expected to shift to more sustainable lifestyles.”

Which brings us to the big question: exactly what are US carriers doing?

Well, Delta, for instance, has been saying for several years that it is “carbon neutral.” But a lawsuit insists the claim is hooey because it hinges on carbon offsets that don’t do much good.

United has been hit with a similar suit alleging “false and misleading” statements.

But mainly we are silent about what the US carriers are (not) doing.

Where is the US government in this brouhaha? I don’t know, do you? Yes, the feds have ponied up tax credits up to $1.75 per gallon for SAF, but that’s not much claimed because there simply isn’t a lot of SAF on the market.

The White House also have unveiled a Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge that is about as exciting as the program’s name. There doesn’t appear to be substantial financial backing for the program but it certainly is rich in telling how grand it will be when aviation is sustainable.

Which maybe puts the ball in our court, that is, the passengers and for us there are “carbon offset” programs. Most airlines now offer such programs and they seem swell. Pony up a few bucks to plant trees and, shazam, your carbon from the flight is canceled out. Except it doesn’t work that way.

Reported the New York Times: “A carbon offset is a credit that you can buy to make up for your emissions. So if you fly from New York to San Francisco, releasing around 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, you can purchase an offset, funding a project that will remove or store that same amount of carbon dioxide elsewhere, often by planting or preserving trees.

At least that’s the idea. But many scientists object to the principle, on the grounds that we need to sharply reduce emissions, not just try to cancel them out.”

The Washington Post is more withering. Here’s the headline: “Airlines want you to buy carbon offsets. Experts say they’re a ‘scam.'”

That puts the shoes back in our own hands. The best step: fly less. Of course.

When that’s not an option, fly in economy. Pax up front contribute a lot more emissions.

Then there are lifestyle changes we can make such as driving less (walk more!) and driving an electric car.

All these are small steps, yes they are, but right now it’s up to us to make a personal difference because we simply can’t count on the airlines or our government.