While I was researching this week’s video on aviation’s role in greenhouse gas emissions—and especially SAF—one phrase kept recurring in my overstimulated brain: window dressing, albeit sincere window dressing. On the light side of general aviation, the attitude is that the warming planet thing doesn’t really exist, so let’s not even talk about it. And those who acknowledge the data and accept the reality—maybe a third to half of our audience—don’t want to talk about it, either. I’m in that cohort myself. Except I will talk about it because it’s my wont to throw rocks at sacred cows.
In the airline world, it’s a different story. The airlines and companies that supply them—Boeing and Airbus and engine makers who supply them—are among a few segments in American industry who understand long timelines. Boeing announced the 787 in 2003, but saw the need earlier than that, yet the model didn’t enter commercial service until 2011. Even earlier, they foresaw shifting attitudes toward climate change and understood aviation’s singular vulnerability for needing more joules per revenue mile than any other form of transportation. And joules equal carbon.
While the piston brain trust made sure to sabotage unleaded fuel at every turn, the turbine mafia, as I’ve heard it called, not only jollied along the development of sustainable aviation fuel, it got various kinds of it certified for transport category aircraft. Imagine. You can’t buy high-octane unleaded gasoline, but you can find SAF—at $9 a gallon—for your PT-6 at a large handful of airports.
Is this a good thing? After immersing myself in this subject for several months, I can only conclude it’s the only thing. The air transport industry collectively realized it would need a credible effort to “decarbonize,” as they say in the climate biz. And even though turbojet engines are making great strides in efficiency, those gains are likely to be offset by the bullish growth the airline industry sees ahead.
I have questions, however. The reporting on SAF—including what appears here on AVweb—is snapshot stuff, giving the impression that SAF plants are springing up like mushrooms and that we’re headed for a sunny, bright green future. The reality is less rosy. The stories note that SAF production is rising, but often don’t put this is in the context that current production represents 0.1 percent of demand and established goals will be difficult to meet because of lagging investment and feedstock shortfalls.
The airlines and airplane makers are happy to have you believe they’ve got this and decarbonization is well in hand, but it’s a lot more iffy than that. This is the PR war that Qatar Airways’ CEO Akbar al Baker referred to in saying the way things are going now, the march toward airline net zero carbon is an illusion. He isn’t saying it can’t be done, just that it won’t be by adhering to the current approach. He didn’t mention it, but the airlines are also happy to have you believe this guilt-free passage to a lower carbon world won’t cost more. It will. Also left unsaid is that reducing carbon at this stage may or may not be an effective mitigation against further warming.
The most popular current SAF pathway seems to be HEFA, for hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids. This method relies on used cooking oils, animal fats and oily vegetable matter for feedstocks. In the future, it might rely on algal oil purpose grown for fuel. But there’s not enough of this stuff to meet the demand and there’s already pressure on what supplies exist from the biodiesel market. So bear that in mind when you read these stories. Not to be too cynical about it, but I’m sure these companies firing off press releases are just as happy to appear to be doing something green as actually doing something, hence al Baker’s comment about PR.
Then there’s the veracity of the actual carbon intensity claims. In the press, we tend to ape what others have reported, that SAF is 50 to 80 percent less carbon intensive than conventional Jet A. But when I was comparing notes on this with refinery expert Paul Millner, he reminded me that in the petroleum business, the rule of thumb is that the carbon follows the money. SAF is presently two or four times more expensive than Jet A, and although some of that may be due to scarcity of feedstock and materials, it’s also true that more process heat, transportation of biomass and catalysts represent human effort and in the modern industrial world, that equates to carbon emissions. To be fair, this industry is in its infancy and efficiency gains are inevitable. It’s yet too soon to say where the economics will go, but the Bain study I quoted in the video reckons that SAF will remain two to four times more expensive than Jet-A and electrics and hydrogen power won’t play a meaningful role for the foreseeable future.
One thing that might play a role in SAF economics is the continuing growth of renewable energy in the form of wind and solar. Because of manufacturing inputs, these are hardly carbon free, but their direct emissions are admirably green. If the economics of wind and solar continue a favorable trend and are paired with SAF production, the carbon budget looks better.
I remain mildly optimistic that SAF at least represents a rational policy response where little else but denial is an option. And speaking of rivers in Egypt, I live in Climate Hell Disneyland—Florida—and have learned some things. First of all, humankind is, on balance, showing itself to be galactically moronic in uniform responses to living in a warmer world. If you’re an anthropogenic climate change denier, well bully for you, but you still have to live in the same world I do. Three cases in point.
Exactly a year ago this week, Hurricane Ian came ashore as a strong Cat 4 storm and essentially scrubbed the barrier islands around Fort Myers clean of habitable structures. After the storm, up went the Fort Myers Strong signs and they’re rebuilding on the same barrier islands. Maybe they’re using extra nails, but in no way is this a sane response to a warming planet. Those islands should be barren sand spits if we hope to avoid a rinse-and-repeat of Ian because if we know anything, we know that’s coming.
Edging closer to the perfect definition of insanity is what happened at my home airport, Venice. We were north of the core of the storm, but it was strong enough to knock down one entire block of hangars and remove and destroy the sliding doors from many others, taking the airplanes with them. We’ve long known that sliding-door hangars are the wrong choice in hurricane-prone areas. The airport knew it, too. In one iteration of its master plan was replacing the sliding doors with bi-fold doors, which are all but immune to wind lifting. For reasons probably related to budget, it never got done. Now the insurance company doing the repairs is replacing the old sliding doors with, wait for it, more sliding doors. They may have stronger or exterior cane bolts, but this is an example of shortsighted decision making and an utter failure to understand the implications of living in a world where 90-degree sea surface temperatures are no longer rare, whether we believe it’s caused by human emissions or not. And like property in general in Florida, I wonder if those hangars will remain insurable.
And by the way, I don’t attribute Ian’s occurrence directly to climate change, I attribute a higher likelihood of it happening again to climate change.
Even those of us who do understand can be thwarted by companies looking only as far as the next quarter. Four years ago, I called my insurance company and asked for the loss prevention department. “Huh,” the lady said, “we don’t have one of those.” Having sought ways to harden the house against damage, I thought I was working in our mutual interest. I was rewarded two years later by having the company drop our coverage.
So against this backdrop, and despite some skepticism, I’m still happy to see SAF trying to carve an actual market share. It won’t turn things around, but we can all hope it may contribute to at least not making things much worse by blindly stumbling along in the status quo.
Thanks Paul. Very well-reasoned, as always. I truly appreciate your writings.
I saw the story this week about the Diamond airplane running on SAF, and my first thought is that the aircraft type should be largely irrelevant. It’s a story about whether or not SAF is a drop-in fuel. If it is, then the airplane manufacturer’s name shouldn’t be the headline, the fuel developer’s name should. But I think we (this audience) need the airplane name in the headline if we’re going to read the article. The fuel maker’s name won’t mean anything to us unless it is one of the brand names we already know for petroleum fuel, which is unlikely for the same reasons we (as an industry) keep shouting down the glimmers of hope in unleaded fuel.
The hype about SAF is all just greenwashing.
Didn’t the CEO of Lufthansa just say that switching the airline entirely to SAF would use half of Germany’s electricity?
Excellent presentation. The aviation industry faces a tough road ahead to decarbonize, even with the use of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) as a drop-in or mixed fuel.
I am not optimistic as it is politically charged and requires significant investment and collaboration among governments, industry, and users. It is an extensive, complex, and expensive issue full with infrastructural and technological challenges.
Investment? Not likely.
Government and industry have not even able to get unleaded MoGas (or unleaded Avgas) at airports for at least the last 30 years now. If LEAD is not enough of an environmental reason to invest a second tank at airports then I do not see some vague CO2 concerns as having a chance.
Ironic that you talk about home insurance in FL. After several decades of nary a claim, I recently received a letter informing me that mine wouldn’t be renewed. WHAT! I figured all the people moving down there from the NE would drive me out; I never woulda thought insurance issues would. Oh well, since I have a summer place in WI, maybe I’ll just stay here since it’s gonna become the next Palm Springs IF I listen to the tree huggers. I’ll remember that BS when I’m shoveling snow in -20-degree temps. 🙂
All this ‘green’ stuff is tantamount to pee’ing into the wind IMHO. It avoids the ROOT problem IF you believe in anthropogenic climate change. In the last 100 years, the world’s population has QUADRUPLED from ~2B to ~8B people. You can calculate the approximate amount of energy each average person consumes and work from that point. So building airplanes that run on McD’s cooking oil and put catalytic converters on farting cows or mandate electric cars but if you want to control the root issue, the world’s population has to be held constant or reduced. A good WWIII would help. All these other ideas are wasting my time and boring me. That Surf Air article the other day pushed me over the edge!
“Greenwashing.” Indeed! And when I see a flightline in Davos filled with bizjets ferrying well-heeled tree hugging fanatics to a conference on how the rest of us should live … any credibility they MIGHT have had flies right out the tailpipes of their jets. John Kerry can claim it’s his wife’s jet but … it’s STILL a jet.
Out of every one of your articles, I try to cherry pick a new word or phrase to remember. In this article, it’s “cohort” (I had to look it up) and your “joules / revenue mile.” Nothing wrong with trying to make movement of people more efficient in one way or another but when someone wants to tell me that using used cooking oil at $9/gal to save the planet … what have “they” been smoking? Go back to Davos, will ya already! OH! Have you seen Jeff Bezos’ new boat?
SAF is a JOKE! And a mighty poor one at that. It’s like someone claiming they’ve invented a perpetual motion machine.
You’re losing touch Larry. To make light of the human cost of war proves it. I don’t know a single hardened vet who would call for more wars. Only the profiteers from their elevated perches.
So you get your WWIII. We get a bit more room and resources, with the heavy cost of needless suffering, unspeakable cruelty, warped worldviews melding back into society, parents longing for their children.
Senseless.
We know you love to be politically provocative. We also know you are a wealth of aeronautical engineering prowess and have witnessed amazing things during of your career. I can reasonably guess which Larry is generally preferred.
I can appreciate your counterpoints on climate change because you put some effort into them. You lose serious credibility when you wish for people to die.
“Losing touch” Yeah, right …
Have you ever heard of speaking ‘tongue-in-cheek to make a point about a nutty subject with another nutty comment, Anthony? Where did you read that I wanted anyone to die with my words? I’ll have you know I served in uniform for 21 years and 18 more in the business of military aviation flight test including during Viet Nam.
Anthony;
Your exposition of the costs associated with WWIII make me feel like the US is already there.
Needless suffering, unspeakable cruelty, warped worldviews and parents longing for their lost children are everyday life these days. Look at any major US city.
Ditto! Well said.
Larry is right.
THE only problem here is overpopulation. Sadly we have no hope of changing that. People are the reason for every environmentally taxing thing. Stands to reason – fewer people – less stress on the environment. People are going to create more people though – and without intent or thought most of the time. So we’re doomed. I should be dead by then though, so good luck to the folks of that time.
And can we please get a grip and quit calling it “Climate Change?” A quick google claims the earth is 4.5 Billion years old. We’ve got maybe 300 years of partial information. I’m terrible at math, but even I know that’s a tiny fraction of a percent. We have no idea what the climate is; so we can’t say it’s changing. Is the average temp trending upwards? Sure it is. And we should look into doing what we can about minimizing human impact upon or necessary environment. But to claim it’s climate change is scientifically bankrupt. Our dataset is far too small to draw big conclusions. But we can and should work on the immediate issue.
And the only true answer to any environmental issue – and most other issues – is fewer people.
Better is the enemy of good enough. Doing nothing is not an option, so I think SAF is a good enough incremental approach to starting to address the climate change reality.
Aviation is very good at incremental improvements that over time yield step changes. Todays jet engines are more than twice as efficient as yesterdays straight fuel to noise converters. This didn’t happen with the application of some magic elixir, it happened with many 2,3, 5 percent improvements that collectively make modern jet engines, much more quiet, efficient and less polluting.
I see aviation SAF following the same path. In 30 years someone is going to get a chuckle over the comments for this article.
Paul, thank you once again for your timely comments on the reality of SAF. I fully support the efforts to convert waste materials such as beef tallow and cooking oils into a useable motor fuel, but I have to temper that optimism with the realities of the scale of the challenge. I have participated in the construction and operation of some hydroprocessing units that turn out a fine diesel substitute from waste oils. They could just as easily produce jet fuel, but avoid that market for the obvious reasons. That technology is well developed, but their biggest issue is availability of feed materials. In order to truly expand in any meaningful way they will have to go with crop-based oils, which then competes with food crops for available farmland. Raising corn for gasohol production has already impacted that conflict and SAF production will only make it worse. Most people do not fully appreciate the scale of a replacement that is needed to make any dent in jet fuel consumption in the US, let alone worldwide. And as you say, whether you believe in climate change or not, really doesn’t matter. Hurricanes are going to keep on coming and Florida is their most frequent target.
The world without fossil fuels:
msn.com/en-us/money/news/what-the-world-would-look-like-without-fossil-fuels/ar-AA1hu2la?
Well … that’ll be one way to bring world population back down to 2B or less …
Nice article. Again I agree.
No words… Sigh.
In all this talk of global warming/climate change I never hear or read of a fix to the real problem. Too many people. Each making very minor contributions to the problem. If it is really a problem.
The developing countries, all wanting to be like the US, are not going to give up their desires to be more like us. Consuming ever greater quantities of stuff.
PB: “The most popular current SAF pathway seems to be HEFA, for hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids. This method relies on used cooking oils, animal fats and oily vegetable matter for feedstocks. In the future, it might rely on algal oil purpose grown for fuel. But there’s not enough of this stuff to meet the demand and there’s already pressure on what supplies exist from the biodiesel market. So bear that in mind when you read these stories.”
The reality is–there isn’t enough used cooking oils, animal fats, and oily vegetable matter to produce enough jet fuel the way it is. I’d like to see how much cooking oil is manufactured in the U.S. (and the world) today–if you recycled EVERY BIT of it, would it be enough to provide enough jet fuel (not to mention diesel fuel and heating oil). Mention is made of “algae farms”–but these are not likely to be a net gainer in producing fuel–it still takes fuel to produce fuel–let alone transporting the raw and finished material.
The reality is that the world economies are linked to the price and availability of fuels–and anything that USES FUEL TO MAKE FUEL doesn’t solve the problem. I’m not a big fan of electric airplanes, but electricity made without liquid fuels (solar, nuclear, geothermal, hydropower) is much cheaper and capable of producing energy cheaper and cleaner than liquid fuels. The problem is that unlike trains and automobiles, electricity storage in aircraft hasn’t produced the long range and speed required for air travel.
Let the marketplace set the pace–free markets almost always perform much better than government fiat.
Like it or not, the only for seeing alternative to a reasonable use of actual liquid fuels are the nuclear ones in a way they can extract electrons direct from atoms in cold fusion and have a more than sufficient autonomy for cross oceans. Why in the hell the industry haven’t started acting in that direction with a real goal is his mind? The research wil be, of course, very long and expensive. But the result could build another different world.
Paul, I love your column…and you are usually a data guy….but, whether anthropomorphic or natural variation of a inter-glacial period in a world that is usually colder (and will be as we approach another natural glaciation period), thus far there is NO DATA saying hurricanes are worse or more frequent since the last slope of falling temperatures (1930’s-1970s). DATA, DATA, DATA.
Here’s your data … from Burt Rutan:
youtube.com/watch?v=jPP7P43wulg
I’ll have to disagree with you. There is plenty of credible data showing that the frequency or more intense storms is higher because of higher SSTs. So too the intensity of ttraining rainstorms as flooded Ft. Lauderdale recently and New York over the weekend.
I see two kinds of denialism here. One, that the world isn’t getting warmer, another that damage from storms isn’t getting ever more expensive. Data from my little corner of the world, where Gulf temperatures reached record highs in July and my insurance doubled before being cancelled, gives lie to these claims. I have no idea why people believe them.
One can reasonably argue whether this is driven by man made emissions by citing credible countervailing data. Once the word “hoax” is used, I tune out..
Or, storm damage increases because the number of buildings has increased exponentially and that we have more names storms simply because we now have weather satellites. As far as a warm gulf, were are having a BELOW NORMAL hurricane season. Point is that reasoning people are not fast to point a finger at CO2 so much as point to stupid developers blanketing gulf coast areas without regard for “weather”.
We have more storms because of weather satellites?
We don’t have more storms. We have more names because we see them earlier and more often than in the days before weather satellites.
Seriously, Arthur? More storms because of more satellites? We don’t have more storms, we have more *intense* storms, just as was predicted by rising SSTs. Plenty of good science on this and the data is undeniable. If you’re not cherry picking, you’ll find it.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1713-0
It is true that the larger order monetary damage effect is caused by more, higher value property in the way of storms. It’s not just a coastal effect, it’s everywhere.
More and better satellites since the 70s means finding and naming more storms (like better telescopes since the 70s find and name more galaxies).
Big storms require big temperature differentials; not heat. We see that now in the Gulf with high temps and zero hurricanes. The hot atmosphere this summer actually blanked out big storm from forming or even entering the Gulf.
Agreed, damage from weather is everywhere! You get that from explosive grow in building and in changing the surface (changing water flow paths, paving watersheds, cutting down wind breaks, ets). It’s the surface more than CO2 that is the real game changer in increased flooding and fires and habitat change. Blaming CO2 for flooding but not the developer that covered the watershed with strip malls is silly.
Hang on good Sir….the world is getting warmer (due to either natural variation (btw which we cannot model), anthropogenic additions of increasing CO2 (which the IPCC is trying to model….but the models run hot for models starting in the 1970’s to present), or both. No one is using the word hoax here. The question of ‘weather vs climate change’ is where most journalists get very confused. The IPCC itself (the science papers themselves) is not yet reporting Climate Change has changed the weather events….they talk about probabilities in the future from modeling. Severe weather has always been statistically part of weather, not necessarily climate change (natural or manmade). Scientist Stephen Koonin (in his book “Unsettled”) has a very good chapter on helping to understand this and differentiate the two. The are plenty of journalists and weather channel reporters running around stating the observed severe weather is from manmade climate change, but peer reviewed research papers which are all included in the IPCC reports do not reach the sort of certainty that somehow you conclude wrt to severe weather. That’s why DATA is important to scientists.
I know old habits die hard, and weight is important in airplanes. But if you convert turbine engine burn into litres per second, most pilots are shocked, four engined plane and eight litres a second, (that is an US gallon if I remember correctly) is not uncommon. Four litres a second for a large two engine, trans Atlantic model…
After all, you run a tractor, or an earth mover, you count consumption in litres per hour, don’t you?
For airlines, the problem is that more and more people are doing so. And while 2023, saw a huge post-COVID rush to the sun by Boeing 737 and Airbus A320s, more and more people, (including nearly all our summer visitors) admitted they were uncomfortable doing so.
They were even more uncomfortable in 35C+ temps, but they will have to learn to live with that.
PS. That is why airport associations and other trade bodies in Europe are pushing the SAF idea like there is no tomorrow. The only logical way to see it happening is for fossil jet fuel to be taxed at, at least, the same level as petrol (gas in US) is in Europe. Watch this space.
The root issue of man-made climate change is reduction of energy consumption, mere exchange of one form for another will have other unintended, “non-optimal” impacts on the environment.
Window dressing is the issue with popular uptake, the bumper stickers on hybrid Suburbans, SAF burning airliners/bizjets or multiple mansions/yachts used by those telling “you people” how to live does not go over well. As far as global population reduction, that is likely by the end of the century…wonder what those bumperstickers will look like.
As far as energy use reduction, I vow to expand on my part, send me a small fraction of the funding floating around and I will retire immediately and give up commuting.
Paul nailed it for me. I assumed I was was in a much larger minority due to my disinterest in what is for many a very important topic.
So thank you to the author.
Why yes, yes, I’m an anthropogenic climate change denier. Furthermore, it’s my understanding there’s been innumerable hot/cold climate cycles over earths four and half billion years. I do want a clean environment. We’ve come a long ways and can do more. But, carbon is good and essential.
If we must remove carbon from the atmosphere . . . converting it into trees is the most logical and economical method.
BTW: I suspect the elephants in the room for emissions are volcanic activity, natural forest fires and lawn grooming equipment.
One elephant in the room that most people overlook or ignore is the carbon emissions from agriculture. It is one of the major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. So, large scale production of crops to manufacture SAF will come with its own emission problems.
I guess in our SHORT lifetimes 50 – 70 years, every year appears to be “hotter” Remember when we were kids and the term “sweating bullets” was used to describe the hot summer temps? And the term “Brass Monkeys” was used to describe winter’s freezing temps?
Yes the world has been getting warmer over the last 15,000 years after the last glacial period when the average temp was -40C; however, there have been cooler periods and warmer periods during those years. A thousand years ago the Vikings came to Greenland as there was no ice on the island or ice clogged Atlantic Ocean and they could inhabit the place and grow crops. North-eastern US was known as “Vineland” for obvious reasons. During the 1600;s the northern hemisphere went through the “Little Ice Age” when thousands of people died… even in the US!
Deal with the ups and downs of the temps.. it’s normal.. the earth has its own periodicity…
We have to deal with it Throwing Trillions of dollars at the nonissue is senseless and wasteful..
Yes–we should all do what we can to control pollution–but let’s not pick nits. To put it in perspective and to add an example, I Googled “Wildfire carbon pollution–aviation” and came up with this:
‘Boreal fires released nearly twice as much CO2 as global aviation in 2021’
“Boreal fires released nearly twice as much CO2 as global aviation in 2021. If this scale of emissions from unmanaged lands becomes a new normal, stabilizing Earth’s climate will be even more challenging than we thought,” Davis explains.
Ah, the long view! Of course, there’s long, and then there’s l-o-o-o-ng.
Looking at the latter, most of the Florida peninsula is destined to go back to being a shallow sea no matter what we do today because even without mankind’s accelerating help, and in spite of whatever we do now, the coming interglacial maximum has always promised that. Along with a few thousand years of greenhouse climate before the next era of ice & snow really gets going.
Taking the same view of fossil fuel, it’s a finite resource and no way could we sustain our current consumption rate that much l-o-o-o-nger anyway. That, incidentally, is about the only factor that mitigates my annoyance at the poorly planned panic style energy transition that is being imposed on us today.
If everyone would just admit that it’s about cost and availability, then we can solve those issues.
If you get off into the weeds and try to “save the planet” then there is no rational solution and we being told to pay more and get less. Please move peaceably into the boxcar….
A narrow body jet airliner burns 1,000 gallons an hour. I just have to say, get real.
Chris…
Our society seems to still be dogged by the Mathusian fallacy. If you agree that every peroson is a burden to the planet, then clearly the highest standard of living would be achieved in the lowest population density areas of the planet. In fact, the opposite is true.
The Malthusian idea starts with the idea that “resources” are fixed and therefore standards of living always fall as poupulation increases. “Resources” are not fixed. Land produces orders of magnitude now than it did in the 1840s. The population is an order of magnitude higher and by any standard people are healther, better fed, and live better lives. Because each consumer is also a producer and mostly produce more than they consume, and “resources” is what we decide they are. 30 years ago lithium was not a resource. 120 years ago oil was not a resource. 400 years ago even coal was not a reouce, but firewood was, and clearly reaching its limits.
The best for everybody would be do mention the potential issue, and let the market work from there, rather than undermining the very system that can address it.
Green is an economic product.
Malthusian musings aside, you’re ignoring the externalities. American-style capitalism is amoral in this regard. It’s good at reproducing itself and building wealth without regard to consequences to the environment and, historically, the workers who build that value.
At one time in this country, we had a belief in something called sound public policy. That’s why the Cuyahoga River no longer catches fire, why Los Angeles isn’t a smog bowl, why we no longer burn leaded gasoline or use leaded paint, why cigarette smoking was identified as a health hazard and why we don’t tolerate drunk driving the way we once did, to name just a few examples. But the government-can’t-do-anything-right sentiment runs rich now, so people are quick to denigrate any public policy they don’t like.
If hoaxers and deniers are wrong about the effects of CO2 emissions and we continue on the present path, it’s possible that we’l reach a tipping point where minimal mitigations will be ineffective and major climatic changes will become overwhelming. If they are right, the economic drag of policies such as encouraging SAF will inhibit growth while, at the same time, having zero effect on climate. This might be true even if we’re headed for a tipping point.
I occupy the middle ground, myself. I find it difficult to sort through all the noise spewed by both sides. Ground truth is hard to come by. I do find it easier to tune out the wild-eyed hoaxers, however.
American style capitalism has raised more people or of poverty than any nation in history. Saying that is “immoral” is borderline delusional. Turn off your PC, destroy your American airplane, and farm for your meals if you are morally against “American” civilization and what it has done to elevate even people like you.
As far as CO2, the USA has been trending down for decades. Communist China, not so much…
The airline are all for SAF, as long as it doesn’t cost them more!
If we were to produce a low carbon fuel in the future it would be best applied to cars and trucks first before using this fuel in Aircraft just because of the distribution to aviation would create much higher carbon pollution per gallon of fuel delivered when compared to close and easy distribution at the point where the fuel is produced. Aviation could get the best use of their money now by converting ground equipment to electric.
And now a new idea coming from those people we liberated in France … a lifetime limit on the number of airline trips one can take (sic)! GREAT idea. We won’t need no stinkin’ SAF because there’ll be fewer airplanes flying around. I hope Al Gore and John Kerry and the rest of the fat cats get this message and comply?
Well, it is about time that the truth concerning the SAF hoax was told. The comments here are the best part. The same is overdue for stupid eVTOLs and battery planes that no one wants. As far as the myth of man-made climate change is concerned, the few people who still believe that bunk need to read Alex Epstein’s latest book: “Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas–Not Less”
Paul–“If hoaxers and deniers are wrong about the effects of CO2 emissions and we continue on the present path, it’s possible that we’l reach a tipping point where minimal mitigations will be ineffective and major climatic changes will become overwhelming. If they are right, the economic drag of policies such as encouraging SAF will inhibit growth while, at the same time, having zero effect on climate. This might be true even if we’re headed for a tipping point.”
I agree, but that’s the point of the argument–the BELIEVERS in “global warming” believe that it is man-caused and demand immediate “change”–even with the chance of making the problem worse. The “Deniers” (more accurately, those that demand PROOF before radical action) point to history–“Climate” is ALWAYS changing–look at the coal deposits laid down millions of years ago–with leaf prints still intact–AND LOCATED IN THE ARCTIC! You can’t blame Homo sapiens for “changing the climate” for that. Similarly, you can’t blame the rise and fall of the seas over millennia on “people” either. Can mankind change the climate? Yes, LOCALLY, but likely not “globally”–witness the smog in large cities with unique geography (think the Los Angeles bowl)–but it dissipated quickly after legislative changes–“Global” is a reach too far for “climate change” for the entire Earth.
Nobody “wants” air pollution–but usually, people used to demand that the case be made for legislative action before freedoms were abridged. That is often no longer the case. Far too many people believe “History started on their birthday”–and they demand that “government” DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW! Unfortunately, every bit of legislation takes away someone’s rights in favor of another party–and despite what it tells us, government is NOT infallible.
Before taking drastic steps, I would ask legislators to follow the Hippocratic Oath as used in medicine–“premium non nocere” “First, do no harm” when introducing legislation. Let’s instead consider the examples of “Henny Penny” and “Chicken Little”–both of which sincerely but erroneously believed “the sky is falling” and that the world was coming to an end. The Aztec and Mayan religions also believed the world was coming to an end–and “scientists” in 1910 believed that Halley’s Comet would destroy the Earth.
“Can mankind change the climate? Yes, LOCALLY, but likely not “globally”–witness the smog in large cities with unique geography.”
Sez you. People who are skeptical of man-made GHG emissions argue that the amounts are too small. This couldn’t possibly cause such major changes. But they often do not understand the notion of a balanced carbon cycle, with man-made emissions tipping the cycle out of balance. “Climate is always changing,” goes the the claim. But the fact is, during the industrial age, it hasn’t been changing much, and not much a century before that that made it outside the bounds of human tolerance.
There is a convincing body of data the GHG warming is happening and the empirical observations fit the theory and it appears to be happening faster that many of these scientists thought possible. So explain to me why this is so? What is the reason for rapid warming? The data supports this.
The problem with “do no harm” is that if this theory is correct, we’ll just standby and do nothing as the warming accelerates and makes parts of the planet unlivable. If you’re paying attention, you will have noticed this is already happening. So if you think the response should be no expense, no “loss of rights” and warming gets worse, there will be a price to pay for that. Could be steep is major populations shift out of unlivable areas due to heat, flood and desertification.
The other response is physical mitigations to accommodate a warmer world, to make humanity more resilient. We’re not doing that, either. Because people don’t want to pay for it in most parts of the world. I have my doubts that any the proposed GHG emission reduction plans will work. Honestly, I think we’re f&*ked. And by the time we realize it, it could be too late to do anything about it.