SUSTAINABLE OR JUST A SMOKESCREEN?

Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), derived from non-fossil sources, has been touted as the industry's silver bullet in the race to decarbonise aviation. But a growing chorus of critics is questioning whether it's more a marketing ploy than an environmental saviour.

Alternative fuels aren't new to aviation, but how we discuss them has shifted. Virgin Atlantic's headline-grabbing November 2023 flight using "100 per cent sustainable aviation fuel" wasn't the first of its kind. In 2008, the airline flew a Boeing 747 powered by a babassu and coconut oil blend (albeit less than 100 per cent). The difference? The 2008 press release mentioned "biofuels," not SAF.

The term "sustainable aviation fuel" gained traction around 2009-2010, appearing in IATA and ICAO documents. Today, it's the industry's preferred phrase for non-fossil jet fuels, encompassing everything from used cooking oil derivatives to fuels made from captured CO2.

The legal turbulence

Environmental groups are pushing back hard. In July, legal nonprofit ClientEarth targeted airlines at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, demanding they drop the 'sustainable' label from SAF. This followed a landmark court ruling against KLM, which found the airline's sustainability claims misleading.

The UK's Advertising Standards Authority followed suit, grounding Virgin Atlantic ads claiming "100% sustainable aviation fuel" use, arguing it misrepresented SAF's nature.

What's their objection? Really, it comes down to three factors:

1. THE SUPPLY CHAIN STRUGGLE
Despite the buzz, SAF usage remains minimal. It's pricier than conventional jet fuel, and supply chain issues persist. According to IATA, SAF will account for at most 0.5 per cent of total aviation fuel consumption by year-end. The industry body projects this could soar to 65 per cent by 2050, but critics argue these projections involve a certain amount of magical thinking. A panel at the SAF congress in Amsterdam in May found that the 33 SAF plants operating today must multiply to 300+ by 2030 to meet industry targets. The clock is ticking, given that a typical fuel plant takes three to five years to build.

2. THE FEEDSTOCK DILEMMA
SAF's raw materials are another point of contention. Climate activists warn about the sustainability of sourcing used cooking oil from countries like China and Malaysia. Transport & Environment, an environmental think-tank, has raised red flags about massive UCO imports potentially negating the environmental benefits due to transportation emissions and the risk of palm oil contamination. The food versus fuel debate adds another layer of complexity, with critics pointing to profitable fuel crops displacing food production.

3. THE INNOVATION STALL
Critics argue that the SAF fixation is stalling the development of potentially "true zero" solutions like electric and hydrogen propulsion. For example, if we look back two years to the 2022 Farnborough Air Show, I have memories of sitting in an Airbus briefing telling us that we'd see a 100-200 seat hydrogen-powered narrowbody aircraft by the mid-2030s. Two years on, these plans have been significantly diluted, with Airbus now discussing an A320 replacement running on today's technology, powered by – you guessed it – SAF.

The rebranding imperative

For all these reasons, environmental groups and other critics are pushing the industry to stop calling these fuels 'SAF'. I predict that by the end of 2025 at the latest, there will in fact be legal moves in Europe preventing the industry from doing so.

What are the alternatives? While climate groups advocate for "alternative fuels," some commentators suggest reverting to "biofuels" and "e-fuels" (for Power to Limited fuels) [Editor's note: BTN Europe began using 'alternative aviaion fuels' as its preferred teminology earlier this year].

Another proposal has been a tiered system like "SAF50" or "SAF90," which would reflect the actual CO2 savings of different fuel types. This approach would particularly benefit power-to-liquid fuels, which offer an almost circular solution by capturing CO2 during production and emitting it from aircraft engines.

However, let's remember why this semantic debate even exists: because climate groups simply don't trust the industry's commitments.

So, the quickest way to settle the argument? Action over words. If aviation can actually produce the volume of sustainable fuel needed to decarbonise the sector meaningfully, it would go a long way toward silencing critics and securing SAF's place in the green energy lexicon. Until then, the industry faces an uphill battle in the court of public opinion – and potentially, in the courts of law.