I'm still trying to wrap my head around the claim that these are 'sustainable' aviation fuels. To begin with, our current rate of emissions is unsustainable, so anything that is merely neutral to the current rate is unsustainable. The only sustainable fuels would be those that actually reduce emissions to a sustainable level (and that's a large reduction).
Secondly, photosynthesis via plants and organisms is a carbon sink. It creates a captured reserve of carbon that will not return to the atmosphere. This is essential to a sustainable balance in the carbon cycle. If we burn ANYTHING, we are returning that carbon to the atmosphere, thus achieving, at best, a carbon neutral process, and, again, that is not sustainable.
SAF fuels also are derived from sources that may increase, or retain, the current levels of deforestation, which are unsustainable. Lufthansa uses a biofuel created by Neste Oil which is derived from reclaimed palm oil from the palm oil refining industry. That industry is unsustainable, therefore any feedstock for fuels that depends on that industry is unsustainable.
Boom is pushing ahead with its supersonic transport development (with UAL on board), claiming it is sustainable because it uses sustainble aviation fuel. That's nonsense. It is burning more fuel per seat/mile (much more) than needed in order to transport passengers in less time, which is not sustainable. They can claim that it uses less fuel than the Concorde, but neither design is at all sustainable.
Sustainability can be defined as anything the REDUCES our carbon output to levels that are in balance (or in deficit) with the carbon cycle and no longer contribute to increased climate warming. Carbon neutrality at this point is no longer sustainable. Minor reductions are no longer sustainable. And, by all means, diminished increases are most certainly not sustainable.
So how is SAF not just one big greenwashing scheme to greenlight growth in an already unsustainable industry? In fact, how is it more environmentally sustainable than fossil fuel? At least fossil fuel, which is most definitely NOT sustainable, doesn't also consume active photosynthesizing vegetation.
Secondly, photosynthesis via plants and organisms is a carbon sink. It creates a captured reserve of carbon that will not return to the atmosphere. This is essential to a sustainable balance in the carbon cycle. If we burn ANYTHING, we are returning that carbon to the atmosphere, thus achieving, at best, a carbon neutral process, and, again, that is not sustainable.
SAF fuels also are derived from sources that may increase, or retain, the current levels of deforestation, which are unsustainable. Lufthansa uses a biofuel created by Neste Oil which is derived from reclaimed palm oil from the palm oil refining industry. That industry is unsustainable, therefore any feedstock for fuels that depends on that industry is unsustainable.
Boom is pushing ahead with its supersonic transport development (with UAL on board), claiming it is sustainable because it uses sustainble aviation fuel. That's nonsense. It is burning more fuel per seat/mile (much more) than needed in order to transport passengers in less time, which is not sustainable. They can claim that it uses less fuel than the Concorde, but neither design is at all sustainable.
Sustainability can be defined as anything the REDUCES our carbon output to levels that are in balance (or in deficit) with the carbon cycle and no longer contribute to increased climate warming. Carbon neutrality at this point is no longer sustainable. Minor reductions are no longer sustainable. And, by all means, diminished increases are most certainly not sustainable.
So how is SAF not just one big greenwashing scheme to greenlight growth in an already unsustainable industry? In fact, how is it more environmentally sustainable than fossil fuel? At least fossil fuel, which is most definitely NOT sustainable, doesn't also consume active photosynthesizing vegetation.
Comment