Commercial airlines are responding to the rising price of aviation fuel and to growing acknowledgement that the aviation industry must become more sustainable. Several airlines, together responsible for about 15 per cent of total commercial jet fuel use, have committed this week to a more sustainable future, pledging to make positive steps toward developing biofuel use.
The newly-formed Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group (SAFUG) which includes Boeing, the petroleum refining technology developer UOP, and airlines such as Virgin Atlantic, Air France, Gulf Air and Japan Airlines, claim they represent the first global transportation sector to voluntarily push for sustainability practices in its fuel supply chain.
The group is initiating peer-reviewed research into a biodiesel fuel derived from jatropha curcas – a plant grown in many tropical and subtropical areas that does not compete with food crops – which will include assessment of lifecycle CO2 emissions and potential socio-economic effects on producer countries. The Natural Resources Defense Council is looking into algae as another alternative.
…or green wash?
Earlier this year a highly-publicised Virgin Atlantic flight using a small proportion of biofuel was dismissed by leading environmental groups as “high-altitude greenwash”. They raised concerns about the impact on food crops, the possibility of increased deforestation and depletion of arable land, and the simple fact that any progress made by converting to biofuels would be dwarfed by the continued growth and expansion of the aviation industry. Commercial aviation, whilst responsible for only three to five per cent of global carbon emissions, is nevertheless the world’s fastest growing source of those emissions.
Aviation – currently just 5% of co2 – will not become the largest contributor to global warming by 2020. It would need to increase 500% over the next 12 years – to 25% – to do this. Some people have argued that IF all other industries reduced their emissions by 60-80% AND aviation kept on growing fast THEN aviation might be the biggest contributor. I think that’s a bit of a cheat!
Others commended the effort as a step in the right direction, noting however that to remain viable the focus needs to be on developing algal fuels rather than the coconut and babassu oil from which the Virgin flight’s fuel was derived.
Can air travel be responsible travel?
Environmental pressure groups often argue that reducing the amount of flights we take – or even ceasing to fly altogether – is the only way to maintain a sustainable lifestyle and slow the onset of global warming. But whilst it is undeniably necessary to steadily cut down on the number of flights we take, the issue of responsible air travel is a little more complicated than this.
After all, the blame cannot always lie with the consumer. Commercial aviation should bear a proportional level of responsibility for developing the industry along more sustainable lines, and the impetus must come both from government and internal pressures. Unfortunately at present, British airlines are effectively subsidised by roughly £9 billion every year through the absence of any tax on kerosene, the fuel used by aircraft.
This means that airlines are allowed to displace the real cost of flying – and it is the environment, the government, and society as a whole that ultimately pays that cost. Voluntary carbon-offsetting schemes only reinforce the idea that it is the consumer who must take positive action, and not the airlines themselves. Governments need to implement some mechanism by which airlines are forced to account for the environmental damage they cause, whether this takes the form of fuel taxation or inclusion in the Emissions Trading Scheme.
A further issue is that refusing to travel by air would have huge detrimental effects on tourism in some of the countries that rely on it most. British tourists currently spend over £2 billion in developing countries, at least some of which supports local employment, local businesses and local conservation of national parks and cultural heritage. It is true that some of this money also goes towards multinational corporations, corrupt regimes and environmentally unsound practices, but this is an argument for changing the way we travel – not ceasing to travel altogether. It should also be investigated whether flying on ‘low-carbon holidays’, serving as a break from a normal daily life that can involve much higher levels of energy consumption, may actually produce smaller net carbon emissions than not travelling at all.
A cautious approval
SAFUG’s pledge should be welcomed as a positive development in the creation of viable alternatives to fossil fuels. Since reducing or eliminating commercial flights is both unfeasible without more decisive government action, and arguably unwelcome given the benefits of responsible tourism to host communities, any efforts to increase the sustainability of commercial aviation is a good thing.
However, the more urgent objective of curbing the growth of the aviation industry remains to be seriously engaged with by governments, and is unlikely to gain much support within the industry itself.
It is therefore vital to continue lobbying governments to intervene, promoting greener alternatives to air travel whilst encouraging greener practices by airlines themselves. The actions of SAFUG must be continually monitored in light of their promise to ensure biofuel development will not prove damaging to producer communities, and they must be held to their commitment – proving to us that it isn’t just a load of hot air.
