The global aviation industry is burning jet fuel like there’s no tomorrow.
Jet engines now emit more fossil fuel CO2 than 120 nations combined. And the industry plans to send ever more flights into our overheating atmosphere come hell or high water.
The only viable solution – according to the industry and most governments – is to quickly switch to “sustainable aviation fuels” (SAF). SAF is made from biomass or recycled CO2, which they say can result in less CO2 remaining in the atmosphere. To produce enough SAF in time, massive investments are needed now to build hundreds of SAF refineries. So far, however, airlines are only buying token amounts of SAF because it costs more. That’s leaving potential investors unimpressed and sitting on the sidelines.
Instead of buying cleaner fuel, the airline industry is fueling its rapid growth by burning more cheap and dirty fossil jet fuel. Billions of litres more, and that's sending their climate impact soaring. Most governments, including Canada’s, are greenlighting this through subsidies and exemptions.
If SAF is the only solution, someone needs to pay for it.
Half the world’s jet fuel is burned by the wealthiest one percent on the planet. These frequent flyers can afford to pay for SAF. For that to happen, governments or the aviation industry need to mandate it. Either way, something is going to change -- either our climate will grow more dangerous or airlines will use cleaner fuel. And who knows, many frequent fliers might be relieved to be part of a hopeful path forward for a change.
Shooting up
Let’s start by looking at the dizzying rise in jet emissions.
Jet fuel emissions soar to record heights, while solutions remain grounded - Blue Sky
That soaring black line is the amount of fossil jet fuel burned each year. The CO2 emitted is listed below in brown text. The amount of “sustainable aviation fuel” (SAF) used is shown by blue frosting sitting on top of that fossil fuel line. It's so little that it is essentially invisible at this scale.
Way back in 1990, governments knew that fossil fuel CO2 was overheating our planet. Many nations, including Canada, were promising to emit less. Back then, the global aviation industry emitted nearly half a billion tonnes of CO2 each year from burning 190 billion litres of fossil jet fuel.
Instead of reducing their climate damage, the industry ramped it up. Last year, airlines burned more than a billion liters of fossil jet fuel per day for the first time ever. That record fossil fuel burn dumped 970 MtCO2 into our atmosphere – double the industry’s rate in 1990.
This year, the aviation industry expects airlines to burn much more – in excess of 400 billion litres. That will break another aviation record by emitting more than one billion tonnes of CO2 in a single year.
What will stop this industry’s climate damage from soaring ever higher?
Certainly not a global recession like the one in 2009. And not even a worldwide pandemic lockdown, like humanity went through in 2020. Both caused jet fuel burning to dip temporarily. But I’ve left these speedbumps off my chart because the long-term trend blew right past them, full throttle. This relentlessly rising CO2 trend is driven by the industry’s multi-decade push to maximize growth in flights – which requires burning ever more jet fuel at the lowest possible cost.
SAF to the rescue?
The aviation industry says the only viable way to lower their climate pollution is by switching to “sustainable aviation fuels” (SAF). And they have a plan to switch. Or more accurately, a series of plans. My next chart shows how it started, and how it’s going.
The industry’s “Plan A” rolled out back in 2007. They set a target of ten percent SAF use in ten years.
You can see what success would have looked like on this next chart. The SAF goal is shown by that blue triangle labeled “Plan A”. But also look at the dotted line below it. That’s the amount of fossil jet fuel burning under the plan. Even if successful, the CO2 from fossil jet fuel burning would have kept rising at the same rate it had been – increasing by another three billion litres each year.
“Plan A” failed spectacularly because airlines ended up buying trivial amounts of SAF – one hundredth of one percent of their fuel use in 2017. Meanwhile, airlines increased their fossil jet fuel purchases a thousand times more.
“Plan B” rolled out the next year. Industry trimmed its target to just two percent SAF, and not until 2025. That’s shown on the chart as well, but this time the goal -- shown by a blue SAF triangle -- is so tiny that it’s hard to see. And notice in particular the dotted black line below it. This shows that Plan B allows the CO2 from fossil jet fuel burning to surge twice as fast as under Plan A.
In the end, airlines haven’t even been able to clear Plan B's low bar. The industry now forecasts SAF purchases this year will remain well below one percent of jet fuel purchases.
Actual SAF purchases are insignificant at the scale of these charts. While that is a problem, it is important to remember that climate progress isn’t measured by SAF use. It’s measured by how much CO2 is being added to the atmosphere.
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states clearly: "every tonne of CO₂ emissions adds to global warming."
And these charts show that airlines now emit one and a half times as much CO2 each year as they did back in 2007 -- at the start of their SAF “Plan A”. That's rocketing away from climate safety.
Why are airlines bingeing on fossil fuels, instead of SAF?
Because bingeing on climate-damaging fuel is cheaper and no one is stopping them. In fact, most governments are greenlighting it through fossil fuel subsidies and exemptions.
Canada’s Action Plan
For a down home example of how governments are green lighting fossil jet fuel burning, let’s look at Canada’s Aviation Climate Action Plan 2022-2030.
I’ll start by pointing out four ways that Canada’s Aviation Plan keeps fossil jet fuel both cheap and dirty.
Pollution pricing. Canada’s Aviation Plan exempts most jet fuel from our national climate pollution fee (aka carbon tax). Earthbound travelers are charged $80 to emit each tonne of CO2 while jet-setters are allowed to pollute for free.
Carbon intensity. Canada’s Aviation Plan exempts all jet fuel from federal Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR). These regulations require other fuels to reduce their life-cycle carbon intensity over time. But Canada allows airlines to buy jet fuel that keeps getting dirtier over time. In fact, jet fuel in Canada is among the most carbon intensive in the world.
Most warming is ignored. Canada’s Aviation Plan acknowledges the science showing that two-thirds of the global warming to date that is caused by jet fuel comes from non-CO2 emissions.
These emissions include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter and water vapor. The biggest warming impact from these comes when they combine to form contrails and cirrus clouds.
Canada’s policies, however, ignore 90 per cent of this warming. Only the CO2 emitted by domestic flights gets listed on Canada’s books or covered by Canada’s climate targets. That’s just ten percent of the total as shown on my chart above.
No limits on CO2. Canada’s Aviation Plan places no limit, or “cap”, on fossil jet fuel burning nor on the amount of CO2 the aviation industry can emit.
Cheap, dirty and unlimited. It’s hard for me to imagine how a government could greenlight fossil jet fuel burning more than this. Well … unless they were actively subsidizing fossil fuel production as well.
What about the solution – switching to SAF?
No SAF mandates. Canada’s Aviation Plan says SAF is “the only feasible alternative to using fossil-based jet fuel … the key pathway to achieving meaningful emissions reductions by 2050.” Clearly, getting SAF sales off the ground is important. To nudge that along, some nations now mandate minimum amounts of SAF. Canada does not. Instead, Canada’s Aviation Plan proposes an “aspirational goal” of 10 percent SAF by 2030.
No SAF production. Canada’s Aviation Plan says there is no meaningful amount of SAF produced in our nation because SAF currently costs airlines two to five times what they pay for fossil jet fuel. Airlines can buy all the cheaper fossil jet fuel they want. So they aren’t racing to pay more: “Canadian air carriers will signal SAF demand with offtake agreements, as appropriate and financially sound.”
The failure to build SAF refineries isn’t just a Canadian problem. A recent report, 2025 Global Sustainable Aviation Fuel Report, says globally “the next 2-3 years will be crucial for scaling up SAF production, with approximately €1 trillion (CDN$1.5 trillion) in capital expenditure needed to establish 450-950 new production sites by 2030.” However, “the reluctance of infrastructure investors to commit to SAF projects stems from uncertainty regarding the business case.” That’s biz-speak for nobody in their right mind will spend a trillion dollars to make a product they can’t sell.
If SAF is the only solution, then someone needs to pay for it.
Paying for SAF with higher ticket prices.
Can jet travelers afford to pay for SAF?
Remember “Plan A” above that aimed for ten percent SAF? Or Canada’s current goal of ten percent SAF by 2030? Well, the World Economic Forum (WEF) calculated what this would cost jet travelers, and it turns out to be not very much: “a SAF premium of 2-3x and a blend of 10% SAF would see the price of a ticket increase by ~3-6%.”
My next chart illustrates this scenario.
The bar on the left of the chart shows the baseline ticket price for a typical flight today that burns fossil jet fuel only.
The non-fuel component of ticket pricing is shown by gold coins, while the cost of fossil jet fuel is shown by the silver coins.
Currently, fossil jet fuel accounts for between one sixth and one third of ticket prices. The WEF scenario assumes 30 percent, which is what I use on my chart.
The blue coins show the cost to replace ten percent of jet fuel with SAF. For example, in the middle scenario, SAF costs three times (3x) as much as fossil jet fuel. That would increase ticket prices by around six percent.
That's apparently too high a price to pay.
What do you think?
The richest one percent.
Studies show that the richest one percent of humanity is responsible for half the world’s aviation emissions. Recently, these wealthy jet-setters have been opening their wallets to fund a surge in expensive flight luxuries, from premium class seating, to private jets and ultra-exclusive airport clubs.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) recommends adding a CO2 tax to jet fuel is "critical to more equitably reflect the climate impacts of air travel". And argues: "since frequent flyers likely account for half of all aviation emissions, progressive tax rates that increase with flight frequency, as well as higher taxes on premium class tickets, could discourage excessive flying or raise funding for investments in SAF production."
Can the frequent fliers afford it? To illustrate how much wealthy flyers are spending on pure luxury jet fuel today, take a look at my next chart. It shows the fuel costs for seats in premium class.
According to a study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), the average premium class seat requires around four times more jet fuel than flying economy.
That luxury requires paying four times more for fuel – while also emitting four times more CO2.
First-class luxury can burn nine times more jet fuel – and emit nine times more CO2. That can rise to 14 times more per person for the ultra-luxury of a high-end suite.
By offering these luxury classes, airlines are actively encouraging their customers to burn many times more fossil jet fuel and emit many times more CO2. In fact, the more you end up burning and emitting the more royally they treat you. Pollute enough and you might be handed a glass of champagne as a thank-you.
But there is one luxury I’ve never seen airlines offer – flying without dumping fossil fuel CO2 in your wake. Airlines could easily do this by offering customers SAF certificates that cover 100 percent of that person's fuel. And it would likely cost passengers a lot less than it does to stretch their legs in premium class.
I would certainly pay for fossil-free luxury.
Then again, I’ve been boycotting fossil-fueled jet travel for two decades now. And, sadly, my expectations of this industry keep falling lower as its emissions keep soaring higher. So, I have net-zero faith that airlines will enable climate-safe solutions for their customers in time -- unless they are forced to.
In the meantime, the climate damage from the commercial airline industry will keep taking off...
