Decarbonize Aviation? Good Luck To Us


With weather disasters lined up like airliners on final to LaGuardia, news on climate change is a constant. And with aviation the most energy-intensive form of mass transportation, it’s in the crosshairs as an emitter of greenhouse gas. In this video, AVweb’s Paul Bertorelli examines the role of electric airplanes and, more importantly, sustainable aviation fuel. Bottom line: Don’t expect miracles.

Other AVwebflash Articles


  1. Thanks for your usual great work. Another example of how public relations and media hype can make a horrendously complicated issue appear simple.

  2. No, Aviation is 2% of the 2% of the ALL the man released carbon emissions.
    A full 98% of all co2 releases into the atmosphere is fully NATURAL.
    Aviation is 2% of 2% man released co2 of a trace gas that does not actually driving climate is insignificant.

    • Shush … that’s an “inconvenient” FACT, Art.

      A decade ago, Burt Rutan exposed the CO2 scam and your ‘natural’ statement:

      The video is worth an hour of everyone’s time … it exposes the facts in ways even treehuggers can understand. IF we made ALL fossil fuels go away and IF we made CO2 go away, the population of the earth would cease to exist. Burt makes the point we’re at risk of having too little CO2 and how the Sahara desert USED to be green as a reusult of higher concentrations of same. More CO2 means MORE food can be produced to feed the overpopulation of the world … the REAL culprit in all of this.

      The Qatar Airlines guy has it right …

      That said, IMHO this is one of Paul’s finest works … good points well presented, as usual.

      • I’m old school, where “Global Climate” was so complex that scientists could not say how cooling and warming cycles started (or ended).
        Thank goodness for these days when everyone knows that just one trace gas controls the planet.

        • Is it too late to get your money back from your old school?
          Science nowadays knows very well how cooling and warming cycles started (and ended) throughout geological history, including the present one. With a little effort, you could know too.

          • And those previous cycles all happened because of asteroids, shifting land masses, volcanic events and solar events. Not a one was driven by trace gasses.

      • Rutan was a fool talking out of school on a subject he did not understand.

        “IF we made ALL fossil fuels go away and IF we made CO2 go away”
        No one but climate science deniers are talking such nonsense.

        • The very foundation of science is to question and observe. Since the world did not ice over in the 70s and oceans did rise 12 feet over NYC a few years ago, the real “deniers” are those who are ignoring the world around them.

        • @Dan L. You may be confusing GIGO computer generated [cough] fake “science” with real Science where one can present an apposing view without being shamed canceled de-licensed & ridiculed! As with the passed science of blood letting, or X-raying pregnant women or hundreds of other disproven science! Imagine if past “science” couldn’t be questioned? Don’t confuse faith based Leftist’s religion with science!

          • BINGO! Even MORE poignant that Burt Rutan’s interview because here is a scientist who WAS a ‘darling’ of the climate alarmist crowd until she uncovered the underlying academia scam:


      • Right ON! all this BS about carbon emissions. We NEED CO2. The plants grow greener the more they get it! Let’s put all the neocons into real school to learn what civilization has been accomplishing through hard work since caveman and get these people to understand that “environment” is HUGE! It goes way beyond what we know and have accumulated through all these time! Great debate! I love to see people speaking out and debating in constructive ways!

      • I agree and blame the carbon psychosis on the fact that people who have no God to believe in, can be made to believe anything! i.e. giving up liberty & freedom for fake safety! Only to get mandates & enslavement!

    • “Aviation is 2% of 2% man released co2 of a trace gas that does not actually driving climate is insignificant.”

      2% of 2% of aluminum on an airplane (in the form of a trim tab) can cause it to crash.
      2% of 2% of protein (in the form of a virus, like rabies) can kill a human.

      There are lots of ‘trace’ amounts that can serious damage.

      The atmosphere is a balancing act. Think of a balance-beam scale – just a little bit of extra weight can literally tip the scale.

      CO2 tends to go away after 300 years or so. So the naturally occurring CO2 is dissipating about as fast as it’s being created, keeping the balance. The problem is burning fossil fuels is adding CO2 a lot faster than it can dissipate. CO2 is like a bent trim-tab on an airplane. Slowly, gently, but inexorably tipping it off course. If ignored, over time, it can lead to a death spiral.

      Now, I agree that aviation is a small contributor to overall CO2 emissions (world-wide cigarette smoking is a larger contributor). But I don’t think they should stop looking for solutions. Maybe SAF will never be viable for airplanes. But perhaps the research will apply to ground-based vehicles such as diesel trucks or turbine electric generators.

      • And since the atmosphere has NOT warmed first, reason tells us that surface warming was independent of atmospheric heat trap.

        This is good news.

      • Are You sure virus are a protein compound or are a segmented of nucleic acid (generally RNA) wich is surrounded by a “protective” coat of protein? Please, before writing, be aware if You know what are You talking about. 300 years for the molecules of CO2 to subdivide in C and O? In this matter are You sure You’re writing the exact thing? Think about it!

      • The “balancing act” is more about God’s truth vs. Satan’s lies. i.e. good vs. evil, truth vs lies! As Satan’s et-al used for the climate & carbon hoax/ mongers, selling suckers on fear, so as to empower NWO WEF WHO UN big government to save us, as Reichstag fire empowered Hitler’s hollocost & war to save Germany! Remember how well that B.S. worked!

  3. I drive a Tesla … and I know enough about energy density to know that we are not going to effectively power aircraft with current battery technology, no matter how good it would be for reducing carbon emissions.

    Oh, and I have flown the electric Pipestrel. Interesting. But I sure as heck can’t figure out what it would be useful for.

    • My friend just sent me a blurb from cowboy state daily, where the author, possibly a fossil fueled, anti EV’er points out some place called “Harris ranch” (I didn’t study the article) where they’ve put a couple truckloads of ev chargers online. They’re powered by diesel engines of all things. What’s the opposite of green? Brown? Black? This does explain why some of the charging stations (i drive a Bolt) charge upwards of $.50 per kwh. @ 33.7 kwh of energy per gallon that’s close to $20 per e-gallon. Does NOT HELP the Pro EV movement.

      • You piqued my interest, Chuck. I googled it to see if it was the “Harris Ranch” along I-5 in Coalinga, CA. that I used to use as a $100 hamburger destination when I lived out there. It is. It’s on a relatively sparsely populated area midway between LA and the Bay area. They’re claiming they’re the world’s largest Tesla Supercharging location with 98 Superchargers. The ‘secret’ is that they ARE augmenting the power source for all those chargers.


        Talk about hypocrisy! And the governator is mandating electric cars and trucks in that State … MORE hypocrisy.

        When I can buy an EV for a reasonable price, drive it all day on the road — say 750 miles — easily charge it everywhere for a reasonable rate and it’ll run 250K miles before it needs new batteries or major maintenance … I ain’t drivin’ one … PERIOD. Same thing with the subject du jour here … SAF. $9/gal vs less for the real deal. What a crock.

  4. Great commentary Paul.
    Like Arthur I’ve done the maths and it just doesn’t stack up. Then apart that I have a problem with what is essentially a food source being used to make bio fuels. Seems to me there is a serious problem of ethics there.
    Like so much in politics and policy these days the main issue is all too often appearances and perception rather than big picture reality, logic or reason. Election cycles and social media prominence lead to virtue signalling, prompting irrational policies and near instant public adulation towards the most vocal protagonists with ridicule directed towards those who are not numbered amongst the true believers.
    Of course this all takes years to play out to it’s inevitable end and when the would be saviours are shown to be wrong it’s way past their relevance date; they have enjoyed their moment of fame and society at large has paid a significant price for their foolishness.

    • Politics means never having to say you’re sorry.
      Heck, even just 2 years after the so called “vaccine” no one has apologized for the illegal and over reaching decrease that were foisted (under penalty of arrest) onto the public.

      So yea, those politicians invested in selling monorails and solar don’t care as long as they are making 5 times their salary from those lobbyists….

  5. Hey ! I just noticed, what the heck happened to Paul’s cookie duster ??? Did he lose a bet or something ? Put shawl over his shoulders and he looks like just like my grandmother without it !!

  6. Guess you didn’t hear about his unfortunate accident trying to blow out the cake-full of candles at his birthday. :->

  7. You bring amazing clarity to this complex and controversial subject, Paul.

    (I should copy and paste that to every video you produce).

    Thanks for keeping us so well informed.


    Now the Panasonic EV battery plant in Johnson County, KS is gonna require SO much electrical energy that they need to increase the capacity of the coal plant supplying it with power..

    • Well . . . no. The factory will be powered by Evergy’s grid, not just by “THE coal plant supplying it with power”. [The grid’s power production is currently over 50% carbon free.] The coal burning power plant in question (Lawrence) had five units, of which three are retired. Units 4 and 5 were scheduled for retirement next year or so. Unit 4 is now scheduled for shutdown in 2028 at which point Unit 5 will be transitioned to natural gas.

      So, no increase in coal burning power production.