Star letter

IS SAF JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF GREENWASHING?

There’s been a lot of talk about “sustainable” aviation fuels – or SAF – recently, your publication included. Virgin Atlantic recently made headlines for operating the first 100 per cent SAF-fuelled flight across the Atlantic [see page 17], which has been lauded as a “step change” and a “milestone”.

But isn’t this just another example of greenwashing?

I understand the principle of SAF is that it uses alternatives to fossil fuels – but how much better for the environment are the emissions from say, used cooking oil or animal fats. And would vegans be happy to fly on aircraft powered by this method?

Another question that arises: where is the quality control on these materials? There have been worrying reports that much of this “used cooking oil” is actually just palm oil in disguise – which we know is contributing to huge deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia.

Most airlines seem to have announced targets of achieving up to 5 per cent SAF on flights by 2050… but what about the other 95 per cent? Is such a tiny fraction really enough to make a dent in the overall issue, particularly as all forecasts seem to indicate almost exponential growth in flight traffic.

These issues aside, there seems to be another major problem that no one is talking about: where are we going to get this supply of SAF to meet these targets? The pipeline for producing it simply isn’t in place.

Meanwhile, environmental groups have argued that even if airlines were able to roll out production of SAF to scale, it would be hugely damaging for the environment – not