0%
About
Get Active
Donate

Who We Are

What We Do

Information on Aviation

Communicate

Join the Movement

GREENWASHING FACT SHEET SERIES

What the aviation industry tells you and what they DON’T tell you

What we need to know about decarbonisation promises and false solutions

The aviation sector and their lobby are working hard to maintain their climate damaging growth path. As a reaction to the rising public and political awareness of the climate harming effects of aviation, the sector makes promises of green flying through technology to ensure there are no effective regulations to achieve a real reduction of aviation and its emissions.

 

By taking a closer look at what the industry tells us and what they don’t tell us, in our new fact sheet series we debunk common misconceptions and look behind the green curtain of their promises

  • Efficiency
  • Electric Flight
  • Hydrogen
  • Biofuels
  • E-fuels
  • Net Zero
  • Carbon Offsets
  • Negative Emissions Technologies

Efficiency Improvements

Aircraft efficiency refers to the amount of fuel burned (and emissions produced) by an aircraft in order to transport its payload (passengers or cargo) a given distance (e.g. one kilometer). Efficiency improvements (i.e. reductions in fuel burn) are achieved by optimising the design of the aircraft, the engines, the airline operations (e.g. the flightpath) and by increasing the amount of passengers/cargo carried onboard the aircraft.
CO2/passenger-km is proportional to efficiency (fuel/pass-enger-km).

WHAT THEY TELL YOU WHAT THEY DON’T TELL YOU
Flying can be decarbonised by improving aircraft efficiency. History shows us that “efficiency improvements” have always been accompanied by increased emissions! This is because efficiency improvements also reduce the cost of
flying and contribute to air traffic growth, leading to emissions growth which far outpaces the emissions reductions
of efficiency gains.
Supporting aircraft technology development and air traffic optimisation will have a beneficial environmental impact. Emissions reductions through efficiency gains can also be cancelled out by airlines upgrading the class of seats, and by flying further or faster.
Therefore: financial restrictions on airlines such as increased pricing or fuel taxes shouldn’t be imposed, as this will reduce profit available to invest in new technologies and processes. Therefore: we need further measures to limit emissions such as increased pricing or fuel taxes to incentivise less fuel burned. Such policies will actually accelerate efficiency improvements.

 

Read the whole fact sheet here

Electric Flight

Electric aircraft propulsion systems typically involve aircraft propulsors (propellor or fan blades) that are driven by electric motors. In “fully-electric” aircraft, these motors are powered by electrical energy provided directly from batteries or hydrogen fuel cells (see Fact Sheet 3). In “hybrid-electric” aircraft, these electric motors act in series, or parallel, with a combustion engine powered by jet fuel.
WHAT THEY TELL YOU WHAT THEY DON’T TELL YOU
Electric aircraft will be “zero emissions”. Electric aircraft will NOT be “zero emissions” until the electric grid is fully decarbonised.
Electric flight is an efficient mode of transport. Electric flight is NOT efficient compared to public transport on the ground (rail, coach)
Their contribution to decarbonising aviation will be significant. Any contribution to decarbonising aviation will be severely limited by range and payload.
They will be available soon. The only aircraft likely to be certified this decade will be very small and we won’t see larger aircraft before 2050, too late to prevent climate breakdown.
Read the whole fact sheet here

Hydrogen Flight

There are plans to use hydrogen as a power source for aircraft instead of kerosene. It could either be burned in a jet engine or used to feed a fuel cell to generate electricity to power a propeller. It is produced from other energy sources, has a significant energy loss during the process and is usually stored in liquid form at −253 °C.
WHAT THE AVIATION
INDUSTRY TELLS YOU		 WHAT THEY DON’T
TELL YOU
Happening soon
New aircraft propelled by hydrogen could enter into service by 2035.		 Too late
If it happens, it will come much too late to tackle the climate
emergency.
  Not for medium and long-haul flights Hydrogen will not be viable for medium and long-haul flights before 2050. Until then, only the regional and short-haul market should be targeted, a large part of which can be substituted by road or rail.
Zero emissions
When burned or used in a fuel cell, hydrogen does not produce any CO2, only water.		 Not zero emissions
Hydrogen-powered aircraft will not have zero emissions, even if hydrogen is produced from renewable electricity, because it will still emit NOx and generate contrail cirrus that have a higher climate impact than CO2 today.
  Huge energy consumption
The deployment of “green” hydrogen in aviation would require huge quantities of renewable electricity, which would deprive other sectors needing to decarbonise.
  Success not assured
Hydrogen-powered aircraft exist only on paper. Before it becomes a reality, many problems must be solved, especially in the field of safety, and new technologies must be developed.
Government support required
Public money is needed for funding for hydrogen aircraft development and to subsidise hydrogen production.		 Financial support from governments means taxpayers pay
…most of whom never fly.
Read the whole fact sheet here

Biofuels

Aviation biofuel is a liquid hydrocarbon fuel that can be used with existing aircraft blended with fossil kerosene. Like e-fuel (see Fact Sheet #5 Synthetic e-fuels), the sector calls it a “Sustainable Aviation Fuel” (SAF), which it is not, as we demonstrate in this fact sheet.

Biofuels for aviation are produced from biomass sources and hydrogen. First generation biofuels use agricultural crops. Due to their drawbacks, the sector is mandated by European legislation to use so-called “waste and residues”, either industrial, food, farm and forestry.
At present, the only aviation biofuel of this kind proven at scale, HEFA (Hydrogenated Esters and Fatty Acids), are made from feedstocks labeled as “used cooking oils” or “animal fats” (from slaughterhouse operations).

However there is rampant mislabeling of these feedstocks, including, for example, virgin palm oil labeled as used cooking oil. So-called “advanced biofuels” from lignocellulosic biomass (wood, straw…) have never been and are unlikely to ever be technically proven at scale. Hydrogen, although rarely mentioned, is required in all certified aviation biofuel production processes, but is today mostly produced from fossil fuels (see Fact Sheet #3 Hydrogen flight).

WHAT THEY TELL YOU WHAT THEY DON’T TELL YOU
Biofuels play a key role in decarbonising aviation and are already being used today. There are plans to scale them up which will allow us to meet increasing air travel demand while still reducing emissions. Biofuels are a false response to the climate emergency: They divert biomass from food production, biodiversity protection and natural carbon sequestration. They also compete with other sectors for the same scarce resources. Anyway, the transition to biofuels has barely begun (0.3% in 2024) and plans to scale them up are far too slow and unrealistic. The only way to rapidly reduce aviation emissions is to reduce air traffic now.
Aviation biofuels could significantly reduce CO2 emissions, by up to 80% vs. fossil jet fuel. Aviation will not use biofuels from crops which have sustainability issues. Biofuel still produces significant CO2 emissions. When made from crops or palm oil mislabeled as used cooking oil, biofuel results in even more GHG emissions than fossil fuels. This would also be the case if the fuels were made from wood or straw.
Aviation will not use biofuels from crops which have
sustainability issues.		 Biofuels from crops are widely used despite major issues:
they account for ⅓ of the current and planned supply worldwide. They compete with food production and have serious
humanitarian, environmental, health and biodiversity impacts.
Aviation will instead use biofuels from “sustainable waste and residues” that will not compete with agriculture or cause adverse environmental or social impacts. The new generation of biofuels is a smokescreen: only biofuels from “waste” oil & fat are available on the market and only in limited quantities which should be prioritised for other purposes. In addition, they are often fraudulently replaced by virgin oils.
Government support is required. Due to the significant extra cost, public money is needed to keep travel costs low, so that aviation growth is not affected. Financial support from governments means taxpayers pay, most of whom rarely or never fly. Subsidies divert money needed for more essential sectors.

 

Infographic Factsheet Biofuels UCOs Keep Frying to Keep Flying
Read the whole fact sheet here

Synthetic Electro-fuels

Alternative jet fuels or so-called “Sustainable Aviation Fuels” (SAF) are liquid hydrocarbon fuels that can be used with existing aircraft in place of kerosene produced from fossil fuels. The industry’s premise of the sustainability of these fuels is to create the fuel using CO2 taken from the atmosphere, rather than using fossil fuels extracted from deep underground that will then emit additional CO2 to the atmosphere when burned. The argument is that blending these fuels with fossil fuels would thereby reduce emissions.

Alternative jet fuel can be broadly categorised into two varieties:

  • Biofuels produced from biomass sources (see Fact Sheet 4)
  • Synthetic electro-fuels (e-fuels) produced using electricity (explained below)

Synthetic electro-fuels or “e-fuels” can be produced by combining hydrogen with carbon to create a liquid hydrocarbon. In order to minimise emissions, hydrogen must be extracted from water by electrolysis using renewable energy; and carbon must be extracted from the air using a process called ‘Direct Air Capture’ (DAC). These can then be combined, to form a hydrocarbon fuel using Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis1. The latter processes must also be powered with renewable energy.

E-fuels are also known as “Synfuels” or Power-to-Liquid (PtL) fuels. E-fuels, as well as biofuels, are drop-in fuels that could be blended with conventional fossil jet fuel (kerosene) and used by the existing fleet.

At first sight, e-fuels seem to be the ultimate weapon for decarbonising aviation: they should be able to be used directly in all types of current aircraft, whatever their range; they do not suffer from raw material limitations because they are made from water and air, which are very abundant resources; and the electricity required could itself be generated from the sun and wind, which are very abundant energies. So why are there no aircraft powered by these fuels yet and very few for another ten years or so? Mainly because the production of e-fuels is extremely wasteful of energy. It would deprive other sectors needing to decarbonise as there will not be enough renewable energy available to satisfy all the requirements in the next decades. Also because this is a new industry starting almost from scratch, that still needs to complete process development and set up a whole new sector.

WHAT THEY TELL YOU WHAT THEY DON’T TELL YOU
Happening soon
E-fuels could start to be blended with kerosene in 2030.		 Too late
E-fuels do not address the climate emergency. Although the technology has been demonstrated, it’s still at the pilot stage and several decades of heavy investment would be needed to scale up production.
Zero emissions
Their production would not cause any CO2 emissions and their combustion would just return to the atmosphere the CO2 from where it would be extracted		 Not zero
Even if CO2 emissions can theoretically be reduced down to zero, they would still generate NOx and contrail cirrus that have twice as much climate impact than CO2 today.
Requires huge quantities of renewable electricity
E-fuels require even more energy to produce than hydrogen, which would deprive other sectors needing to decarbonise.
Very low energy efficiency
No more than about 10% of the electricity used would be converted into thrust to move an aircraft, whereas it can be used with a much better efficiency in most other applications.
Government support required
Due to the significant extra cost governments should provide financial support for e-fuels, so that aviation industry growth is not affected.		 Financial support from governments means taxpayers pay
Most of whom rarely or never fly… Subsidies for e-fuels risk wasting public money on an expensive solution and would keep flying artificially cheap, resulting in more air traffic and emissions than if the industry paid.

 

Read the whole fact sheet here

Net Zero & Carbon Neutrality

Reaching “net zero” targets is currently the central goal set in nearly every climate strategy – be it industry or government. For its part, the aviation sector has committed to reach net zero CO2 emissions by 2050.

According to the IPCC1, net zero CO2 emissions are achieved when any remaining anthropogenic CO2 emissions are balanced globally by anthropogenic CO2 removals. This means with the net zero concept, some “hard-to-abate” emissions are still allowed, provided that equivalent quantities of CO2 are removed from the atmosphere. Net zero CO2 emissions are also referred to as carbon neutrality. When all greenhouse gases are taken into account, this is referred to as net zero emissions.

Balancing residual emissions is promised via Carbon Dioxide Removal; this is a range of processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere in addition to the removal via natural carbon cycle processes. It can be achieved either by increasing biological or geochemical sinks of CO2 or by using industrial processes to capture CO2. Carbon Dioxide Removal is one of two types of carbon offsets2 besides credits for ‘avoided’ emissions.

WHAT THEY TELL YOU WHAT THEY DON’T TELL YOU
Reaching net zero will prevent climate breakdown. If we balance CO2 emissions to net zero by 2050, then we’ll align with the Paris Agreement goal for global heating not to exceed 1.5 °C. Too slow, too late. All that matters is the cumulative emissions in the atmosphere. So net zero by 2050 will be irrelevant if aviation’s fair share of the global carbon budget for 1.5 °C is exceeded long before 2050.
We have the technology. There are a range of technological options that can be relied upon to provide credible emission pathways towards net zero whilst still allowing air traffic to grow. Technology is unproven and resource intensive. We cannot wait: we need to reduce emissions now, which means decreasing air traffic.
Resorting to CO2 removal will be necessary. We’ll not be able to reduce all aviation CO2 emissions by 2050 and therefore will need to resort to CO2 removal to reach net zero. Appropriation of CO2 removal by aviation would not be equitable. One sector cannot appropriate the limited potential of CO2 removal to offset its own remaining emissions, thus buying its way out. What we need instead is a fair, global allocation of the remaining carbon budget.
Non-CO2: Not enough data, no action. Effects of non-CO2 emissions are not well enough understood and quantified to be included in net zero plans. Non-CO2: Too large to be ignored. The precautionary principle therefore requires that they are also included and reduced.
We are addressing the issue. Net zero plans are a means of taking responsibility for climate impacts and mitigation. Our children will pay the price. Corporations and governments use the net zero by 2050 goal to diminish the sense of urgency, disguise inaction today and evade responsibility.
Read the whole fact sheet here

Carbon Offsets

A carbon offset is a ‘unit’ of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that is (allegedly) reduced, avoided, or removed from the atmosphere by one entity and purchased by another entity to try and compensate for its own emissions.

Carbon offsets play an important role in many current emission reduction plans and can be part of cap and trade schemes like in California. Based on projects that are mostly located in the Global South, offsets are being used by states and companies (mainly in the Global North) to achieve compliance. Most trades take place on dedicated carbon markets.

The aviation sector makes extensive use of carbon offsetting. The responsible UN body, the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation), has agreed upon a common scheme for international flights called CORSIA (Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation).

Some countries or regions have specific offset schemes
for flights within their boundaries. Air travellers may also be offered to purchase offsets when they buy tickets from airlines or travel agencies, or they might even come included in their package. Airports are also directly utilising offsets to cover ground emissions and using that as an incentive for people to use their ‘Green Airport’, irrespective of aircraft emissions.

 

WHAT THEY TELL YOU WHAT THEY DON’T TELL YOU
Essential: Aviation emissions are ‘hard to abate’, so carbon offsets will be essential to achieve ‘carbon-neutral growth’ under CORSIA (2021-2035)(1) and ‘Net-Zero CO2 emissions by 2050’(2) Fundamentally flawed: Carbon offsetting does not reduce emissions. It diverts projects that are essential to achieving global climate objectives to justify further growth in air transport. Furthermore, tree planting and forest protection projects, the most popular categories, have no guarantee of permanence and cannot be scaled up
globally due to the lack of available land.
Certified: The quality of carbon offsets is guaranteed
through global standards and third-party certifications.		 Ineffective or fraudulent: Many offset projects do not
meet quality standards and open the door to fraud.
Immediate action: Large quantities of carbon credits from valuable projects are available on the market and waiting to be funded. Postpone action: Offsets distract from the urgent need to reduce aviation emissions to meet climate targets. They increase the risk of climate chaos, postpone action and serve as a licence to pollute.
Fair: As flying is so important to society and the global economy – rather than flying less – it is fair to keep increasing aviation emissions and pay to reduce emissions elsewhere, or to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, when it is more cost effective. Unfair: Carbon offsets are unjust as they justify high emissions from a wealthy minority, while grabbing resources that are essential to the majority, like land for growing food or restoring biodiversity.
Better than taxes: Offsetting is a better alternative to green regulations, like taxes and limits on air traffic
growth, that reduce profit available for aviation companies
to invest in new technologies and fuels. 		 Far too cheap: Carbon credits are so cheap that offsetting schemes will not reduce demand, which is essential to reduce emissions.
Read the whole fact sheet here

Negative Emissions Technologies

Like most governments and many sectors, the aviation sector has an objective of “Net-zero” emissions by 2050. This will not meet Paris Agreement goals without ambitious near-term reductions of emissions they appear unable or unwilling to deliver (See Fact sheet #6: Net Zero & Carbon Neutrality). They justify continuation of high emission levels or even growing emissions by planning for the use of negative emissions [also referred to as ‘Carbon Dioxide Removal’ (CDR) or ‘Greenhouse Gas Removal’ (GGR)] in the fairly distant future. However, as this fact sheet explains: this is a dangerous and reckless strategy.

“Negative Emissions Technologies” (NETs) refers to industrial processes (rather than natural processes such as tree growth) which actively remove carbon dioxide (CO2) by capturing it from the atmosphere and storing it, supposedly permanently. The technologies usually proposed are: (1)

  • Direct Air Carbon Capture & Storage (DACCS) – capturing CO2 directly from the atmosphere via industrial processes and storing it underground.
  • Bioenergy with Carbon Capture & Storage (BECCS) – producing energy from biomass, then storing part of the resulting carbon underground or in the soil.
WHAT THEY TELL YOU WHAT THEY DON’T TELL YOU
WE NEED NETs: We can continue to emit now, and recapture CO2 later, in order to continue growing air traffic. WE NEED TO REDUCE FLYING, NOW: Relying on NETs –not available at any significant scale for decades – provides aviation with a ‘licence to pollute’ which will contribute to heating the atmosphere beyond 1.5°C.
PROVEN: Processes to remove CO2 from the atmosphere work and have been demonstrated. UNPROVEN: both DACCS and BECCS are unproven at
scale and present a high number of severe technical,
economic, humanitarian and environmental risks.
EFFICIENT: NETs can immediately and safely remove large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere and store it permanently. INEFFICIENT: These processes are massively energy- and resourceintensive. It doesn’t make sense to waste scarce energy and resources on NETs rather than use them to decarbonise other activities more efficiently
LOW-COST: Their cost may be high today but costs will decrease when scaled up. HIGH-COST: Even with optimistic efficiency improvements, NETs will remain energy and resource-intensive and therefore expensive well into the future.
FAIR: As flying is so important to society and the global economy – rather than flying less – it is fair to keep increasing aviation emissions and pay to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, when and where it is more cost effective. UNFAIR: NETs are unjust as they justify high emissions from a wealthy minority, while grabbing resources that are essential to the majority. There is also an intergenerational injustice.
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT REQUIRED: Due to their significant high prices, governments should provide financial support for NETs, to shield air travellers from these costs and so that aviation growth is not affected. SUBSIDISING HAS PERVERSE EFFECTS: Any taxpayer money would incentivise continued fossil fuel extraction and emitting of carbon for as long as possible, in order to maximise the profits of the fossil fuel industry today and the size of the atmospheric CO2 removal market tomorrow.

 

Read the whole fact sheet here

While the development of new technologies and fuels may be helpful, it cannot be an excuse to delay emissions reductions that are needed NOW to mitigate the climate crisis. The only way to effectively reduce aviation emissions is to reduce air travel. To achieve this, we need effective regulations to limit air traffic

 In our report on Degrowth of Aviation we lay out how a set of various measures could lead to a just reduction of aviation. In our Discussion Paper on Just Transition we present the idea how a conversion of the aviation industry must and could guarantee security for the livelihood of workers. For more detailed information on offsets, emission trading systems and commodification of nature have a look at our report on Green Flying.