Breeze Airways CEO and JetBlue founder David Neeleman calls sustainable aviation fuel “a joke.” He’s not wrong.
Non-petroleum fuel gets blended with traditional fossial fuels. But the alternative fuels generally take fossil fuels to produce, and bid up crops making food more expensive. It’s also supply-constrained. And the programs to encourage them are largely agricultural subsidies and aviation subsidies.
The argument for them is – sure, that’s true today – but if you subsidize them enough you’ll get the demand that spurs development of something that actually works in the future, maybe. The head of sustainability at American Airlines says,
[A]irlines initially underestimated the scale and complexity of creating an entirely new aviation fuel market. “We had some hubris about how this was all going to happen,” Blickstein acknowledged.
Blickstein said American used approximately 14 million gallons of SAF in 2025 against roughly 4.5 billion gallons of conventional jet fuel consumption, illustrating the scale challenge facing the industry. “SAF costs two to three times what regular jet fuel costs,” Blickstein said.
So I’m skeptical when American announces a new deal with Google on sustainable aviation fuel, and quotes the very same executive:
“Our industry-leading agreement with Google is a critical step forward in reducing emissions from our operations.”
- It’s an agreement for Sustainable Aviation Fuel certificates.
- “American will purchase and take delivery of physical fuel for Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) through existing infrastructure”
- “Google will receive the environmental benefits to help address its emissions from employee business travel via the SAFc Registry”
So it’s Google greenwashing by paying American Airlines to make the sustainable aviation fuels commitments they’ve been talking up a commitment towards for years anyway. And this is all thanks to state subsidies, too.
This agreement was made possible by Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and the Illinois General Assembly enacting a SAF tax credit.
Illinois and Google pay American to do something inefficient that makes very little difference for the environment. And American is fine with it because they’re getting paid for the virtue signal.
The irony of course is that American and Google did real work that matters to reduce environmental footprint, but that doesn’t get ‘credit’ the way this does.
Just 15% of flying leads to the formation of contrails. Hydrogen-based fuels won’t solve the contrails problem. But a 2,000 foot increase in cruise altitude reduces contrails 62% (a 4,000 foot increase would reduce it by 92%). To approach this, and it isn’t always possible, airlines need better meteorological data for flight planning. American Airlines and Google experimented with this and it works,
A group of pilots at American flew 70 test flights over six months while using Google’s AI-based predictions, cross-referenced with Breakthrough Energy’s open-source contrail models, to avoid altitudes that are likely to create contrails. After these test flights, we analyzed satellite imagery and found that the pilots were able to reduce contrails by 54%. This is the first proof point that commercial flights can verifiably avoid contrails and thereby reduce their climate impact.
The real solution to what’s a real challenge in climate has to be technological – new energy sources and carbon extraction.
Commercial air travel is about 2% of emissions, perhaps one fourth that of fashion). And did you know that per capita CO2 emissions in the United States are back to their 1913 levels? Here’s the relative decline since 1979:
I suppose this financial chicanery is mostly harmless, and better than Delta just buying fraudulent carbon credits.
The reality is that the physics and economics for green commercial flight just aren’t there yet. Yeah, buy the tech that does work today like the 321neo or E2, but nobody is going to stop flying, and electric long-haul is a pipe dream.
If we want a real pro-climate strategy, we need to stop wasting time on SAF corporate virtue signaling (‘net zero by 2XXX,’ psh) and fix the grid. Shut down the coal plants (not open new ones!), build out nuclear and renewables, and electrify ground transit. Fix the big stuff first.
Like much of the climate change hoax it might be a hoax but that won’t stop those from making millions off it. Including @1990’s heroes that preach about it endlessly while flying around in their private jets. They will not be giving up those private jets.
@George Romey — Nice caricature. Speaking of private jets, the oligarchic class loves these SAF certificate schemes. It’s just a corporate shell game that lets tech billionaires and airline execs trade fake climate indulgences while regular passengers foot the bill for their tax subsidies. I’m no fan.
It’s a complex issue that for sure is muddied by people on both sides of the debate with misinformation. That said, almost universally, according to people that are well qualified and have spent years studying the situation (Scientists) Climate Change is real. According to many populists who have no background or qualifications to make the call other than what they get fed on the internet they think it’s a hoax. Same people that believe in Chem Trails, Jan 6th election fraud, and exaggerated claims about the dangers of vaccines. They don’t know what they are talking about.
While much of the sustainable fuel is not as sustainable as advertised, this one seems different. They are using waste cooking oil, adding carbon, and using renewable energy. The renewable energy is pulling renewable from other users, so that’s a bit of nothing, but it might encourage more sustainable energy production..
I’m here to see people defend wasteful spending and ineffective policies because they see virtue signaling as more important than actually doing some that works.
@Thing 1 — No one, not even the pro-climate folks, are falling for those silly platitudes anymore. Everyone’s seen how corporations and the ultra-rich abandoned any real solutions; basically, we in the West have abdicated the renewables economy to China. It’s all quite pathetic and sad. “We really did have everything, didn’t we? I mean, when you think about it.” (Don’t Look Up, 2020).