This summer, we have experienced the dangerous consequences of human-made climate change. Record temperatures and wildfires in Wales, Scotland and England have caused misery across Britain, while inflicting lasting damage on our economy.
The consequences of burning fossil fuels are no longer possible to ignore. However, whilst our communities bear the brunt of the climate crisis, the government is considering scaling back ambition on reducing harmful emissions from the aviation industry.
Since the pandemic, we have seen rapid growth in fossil fuel use from aviation. It is among the world’s fastest-growing sources of carbon emissions, and is likely to become the UK’s most polluting sector by 2040. If we are serious about preventing the worst effects of climate change, aviation emissions must be cut – and quickly.
Despite figures having claimed that Labour is “Britain’s climate party, not by accident, but by choice”, the government is now considering derailing efforts to move aviation away from oil and towards cleaner fuels.
Such a retreat would reward sustained lobbying by airlines and US vested interests focused on maximising profits and shareholder returns, rather than putting the sector on a credible path to net zero.
Instead of standing up to airlines and the US, the government, earlier this year, opened a review of the only policy the UK currently has to cut emissions from flying – the use of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). SAFs are renewable fuels that can be derived from waste biomass (biofuels) or by combining green hydrogen and carbon (e-kerosene).
The policy behind green fuels, namely the SAF mandate, was designed to move the sector to fuels that slash emissions. Now the government is looking at reducing both the uptake targets and including imported and dirty crop biofuels. Allowing either would be a big mistake.
Reducing targets will slow down emission reductions, meaning steeper cuts will be needed later that are more costly and disruptive to travellers. Opening the floodgates to crop biofuels from, for example, corn and palm oil would do more harm than good.
Data shows that in many cases crop biofuels have higher emissions than the fossil fuels they replace. It would also inflate food prices in UK supermarkets and drive deforestation.
Today, growing crops specifically to be burned as transport fuel uses 32m hectares of land, an area roughly the size of Italy, to meet just 4 per cent of global transport energy demand.
Expanding their use will put even greater pressure on vulnerable ecosystems. And with multiple harvests this year on track to be among the worst on record, can we really afford to burn more food for fuel?
Aside from the climate and environmental impacts, making changes to policy set just under two years ago would be a disaster for the fledgling UK green fuel industry, which the government has spent more than £200m developing over the last four years. Our analysis also suggests that the sector could deliver over 6,000 SAF plant operation jobs by 2040.
When Labour is desperate to deliver UK growth and jobs it should tread carefully before making changes to policy that is the backbone of a whole new economic sector.
Unsurprisingly, the government’s inability to hold firm on policy has been met with considerable opposition from the growing UK green fuels industry.
They have warned that any dilution of the current rules would shake investor confidence and push investment abroad to countries where steady policy makes for a favourable investment environment.
If this happens, it would completely undermine the UK’s current first-mover advantage and ultimately cost it a new economic sector in regions such as Humberside and Teesside, places that Labour can ill afford to lose jobs.
However, if the UK holds firm on policy, green fuel producers are prepared to deliver.
OXCCU is building a first-of-a-kind plant on the Humber estuary that will turn carbon dioxide and green hydrogen into aviation fuel. ET Fuels has chosen the Port of Immingham for its production, which is planned to both meet UK demand and produce enough for export.
LanzaJet’s Project Speedbird, located in Teesside, is expected to produce over 90,000 tonnes of SAF annually. They anticipate this will reduce carbon emissions by 230,000 tonnes per year – equivalent to 26,000 domestic flights.
These are not distant pilot schemes. These are desperately needed projects in the Humber, Teesside, the north-west and beyond to help create skilled jobs, tax revenue and energy security while cutting emissions. Alternative aviation fuel, such as SAFs, could be worth £16.7bn in exports by 2050.
These projects are also central to protecting the UK’s national and energy security. Currently, our aviation sector remains dangerously exposed to the volatility of global fossil fuel markets, relying on imports from geopolitically unstable regions.
By shifting to domestically produced SAF – utilising the UK’s abundant renewable energy resources-the UK can decouple our aviation fuel supply from these volatile geopolitical shocks.
Ensuring production takes place within the UK’s regional industrial hubs is a necessity, shielding consumers from price shocks and ensures that we build a resilient fuel supply capable of withstanding global disruptions.
Andy Burnham is therefore faced with a clear choice. Back the British SAF industry by holding firm on policy that will bring jobs, investment and ultimately greater energy security. Or remain reliant on fossil fuels and dirty imported biofuels, leaving the UK overall poorer in the long term.
Related
