es.euronews.com
Airlines Lag in Sustainable Aviation Fuel Transition
A new ranking reveals that only 10 of 77 airlines are making significant progress in transitioning to sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs), with the majority using unsustainable biofuels or not using SAF at all; oil companies' minimal investment in sustainable SAF production is also hindering the transition.
- What is the primary reason for the slow adoption of sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) by the majority of airlines?
- Only 10 of 77 airlines are making notable efforts to transition from fossil kerosene to sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs), while 87% are failing to do so, according to a new Transport & Environment (T&E) ranking. The remaining 67 airlines are purchasing insufficient SAF, the wrong types, or not considering it in their decarbonization plans. This lack of progress significantly hinders the aviation industry's efforts to reduce its environmental impact.
- How do the types of SAFs used by airlines impact the overall sustainability of the aviation industry's decarbonization efforts?
- The study reveals that most airlines are using unsustainable biofuels made from corn and soy, which comprise over 30% of SAF agreements, while the most sustainable option, e-kerosene, accounts for less than 10%. This highlights the need for airlines to exert pressure on fuel producers to prioritize the right types of raw materials and invest in truly sustainable alternatives.
- What role do oil companies play in hindering or facilitating a wider transition to sustainable aviation fuels, and what measures could address this?
- Oil companies' minimal investment in sustainable SAF production is a major obstacle. The top eight oil companies could only produce around 3% of their current jet fuel output in sustainable fuel by 2030, and most of this is from unsustainable sources. This inaction severely restricts the availability of sustainable fuels and hinders the aviation industry's decarbonization efforts, necessitating regulatory intervention.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing emphasizes the negative actions and inaction of airlines and oil companies, creating a narrative that highlights their shortcomings in adopting sustainable practices. The headline and opening paragraph immediately establish this negative tone. While it does mention three top-performing airlines, this is presented as a small exception to the overall overwhelmingly negative trend.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as "failing," "insostenible," and "equivocado" (wrong), which carries a negative connotation and shapes the reader's perception of the airlines and oil companies. More neutral terms like "underperforming," "unsustainable," and "inappropriate" could be used.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the failings of airlines and oil companies in transitioning to sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs), but it omits discussion of potential technological barriers or economic factors hindering the wider adoption of SAFs. It also doesn't explore alternative solutions beyond SAFs, such as improving aircraft efficiency or exploring other forms of transportation.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the issue as a simple choice between unsustainable biofuels and e-kerosene, neglecting the complexities of different biofuel sources and the potential for technological advancements in other sustainable fuel types.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights that 87% of airlines are failing to transition to sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs), hindering progress towards climate goals. The reliance on unsustainable biofuels and lack of investment from oil companies in e-kerosene significantly impacts efforts to reduce aviation emissions. The low adoption rate of SAFs (less than 0.15% of total fuel consumption) further demonstrates the slow progress in mitigating climate change from the aviation sector.