(PA Consulting) Two decades on from the first SAF flight, no other technology or pathway is as ready or scalable. Yet the gap between ambition and achievement is striking. While a small number of players are making substantial commitments and significant progress, progress is patchy and falling short of industry ambitions.
Our research of close to 600 airlines, airports, investors, policymakers, and regulators shines a light on the barriers to scale. It reveals that the SAF system – from the value chain through to its regulatory and policy frameworks – isn’t interconnected or collaborative enough to respond to a whole-industry challenge.
92 percent of leaders cite high cost as the primary barrier to scaling SAF.
66 percent of airports currently lack a formal SAF strategy, creating a critical bottleneck for investment and supply.
40 percent of leaders believe widespread SAF adoption will be achieved by 2030.
78 percent say SAF holds promise for job creation in their country. READ MORE
Related articles
(National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine) A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine says the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute.
The report focuses on evidence gathered by the scientific community since 2009, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that greenhouse gas emissions threaten public health and welfare. The EPA recently gave notice of proposed rulemaking indicating its intention to rescind this finding.
The report says EPA’s 2009 finding was accurate, has stood the test of time, and is now reinforced by even stronger evidence. Much of the understanding of climate change that was uncertain or tentative in 2009 has now been resolved by scientific research, the report says.
“This study was undertaken with the ultimate aim of informing the EPA, following its call for public comments, as it considers the status of the endangerment finding,” said Shirley Tilghman, professor of molecular biology and public affairs, emeritus, and former president, Princeton University, and chair of the committee that wrote the report. “We are hopeful that the evidence summarized here shows the strong base of scientific evidence available to inform sound decision-making.”
To prepare its report, the committee considered widely available datasets that provide information about greenhouse gas emissions, the climate system, and human health and public welfare; a broad range of peer-reviewed literature and scientific assessments; and more than 200 comments submitted in response to a request for information.
The report concludes:
- Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from human activities are increasing the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere. Human activities, such as the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, cement and chemical production, deforestation, and agricultural activities, emit greenhouse gases, which include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases, into the atmosphere. Total global GHG emissions continue to increase, even though U.S. emissions of CO2 have decreased slightly in recent years largely due to changes in energy production and consumption. Multiple lines of evidence show that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the primary driver of the observed long-term warming trend. No known natural drivers, such as incoming solar radiation or volcanic emissions, can explain observed changes.
- Improved observations confirm unequivocally that greenhouse gas emissions are warming Earth’s surface and changing Earth’s climate. Longer records, improved and more robust observational networks, and analytical and methodological advances have strengthened detection of observed changes and their attribution to elevated levels of greenhouse gases. Trends observed include increases in hot extremes and extreme single-day precipitation events, declines in cold extremes, regional shifts in annual precipitation, warming of the Earth’s oceans, a decrease in ocean pH, rising sea levels, and an increase in wildfire severity.
- Human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases and resulting climate change harm the health of people in the United States. Climate change intensifies risks to humans from exposures to extreme heat, ground-level ozone, airborne particulate matter, extreme weather events, and airborne allergens, affecting incidence of cardiovascular, respiratory, and other diseases. Climate change has increased exposure to pollutants from wildfire smoke and dust, which has been linked to adverse health effects. The increasing severity of some extreme events has contributed to injury, illness, and death in affected communities. Health impacts related to climate-sensitive infectious diseases — such as those carried by insects and contaminated water — have increased. New evidence is developing about additional health impacts of climate change, including on mental health, nutrition, immune health, antimicrobial resistance, kidney disease, and negative pregnancy-related outcomes. Groups such as older adults, people with preexisting health conditions or multiple chronic diseases, and outdoor workers are disproportionately susceptible to climate-associated health effects. Even as non-climate factors, including adaptation measures, can help people cope with harmful impacts of climate change, they cannot remove the risk of harm.
- Changes in climate resulting from human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases harm the welfare of people in the United States. Climate-driven changes in temperature and precipitation extremes and variability are leading to negative impacts on agricultural crops and livestock, even as technological and other changes have increased agricultural production. Climate change, including increases in climate variability and wildfires, is changing the composition and function of forest and grassland ecosystems. Climate-related changes in water availability and quality vary across regions in the United States with some regions showing a decline. Climate-related changes in the chemistry and the heat content of the ocean are having negative effects on calcifying organisms and contributing to increases in harmful algal blooms. U.S. energy systems, infrastructure, and many communities are experiencing increasing stress and costs owing to the effects of climate change.
- Continued emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities will lead to more climate changes in the United States, with the severity of expected change increasing with every ton of greenhouse gases emitted. Despite successful efforts in many parts of the world to reduce emissions, total global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, and additional warming is certain. All climate models — regardless of assumptions about future emissions scenarios or estimates of climate sensitivity — consistently project continued warming in response to future atmospheric GHG increases. Applying fundamental physics of the Earth system leads to the same conclusion. Continued changes in the climate increase the likelihood of passing thresholds in Earth systems that could trigger tipping points or other high-impact climate surprises.
The study — undertaken by the Committee on Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases and U.S. Climate: Evidence and Impacts — was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences Arthur L. Day Fund and the Ralph J. Cicerone and Carol M. Cicerone Endowment for NAS Missions. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, engineering, and medicine. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln. READ MORE
Related articles More related articles
Excerpt from E&E News Climatewire: In an era of government-approved climate disinformation, a scientific report released Wednesday by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine reads almost like a quiet act of rebellion.
Its findings were notable, but not surprising — the 16-member science panel reaffirmed humanity’s use of fossil fuels is warming the planet and that the increase in Earth’s temperature is putting people’s health and welfare at risk.
But just as significant, science and policy experts said, was the continued commitment by the National Academies to transparency, public input and diverse viewpoints at a time when scientific research is under siege by the Trump administration.
Advertisement
That contrasts sharply with another high-profile climate report published recently by the Department of Energy — a document drafted without public comments by known climate contrarians, which took aim at the mainstream scientific consensus on global warming.
...
Congress began investigating the National Academies report even before it was released, with House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) calling it a “blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump Administration.”
The report was written in response to a proposal by EPA to overturn the 2009 endangerment finding, a landmark decision that made clear greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health.
...
EPA has relied heavily on DOE’s climate report — which scientists have roundly criticized for false and misleading claims — to justify the proposed repeal.
...
The National Academies occupies a unique space in U.S. society.
It was founded as an independent institution in 1863 to provide science policy advice during the Abraham Lincoln administration. It is funded by a mix of federal sources, private foundations, individuals and corporations.
But now some of its work is in danger. National Academies leaders have warned staff that they may have to lay off about 250 of 1,100 employees by the end of the year due to the Trump administration’s federal research cuts and the elimination of contracts.
The cutbacks are part of a broader retreat from scientific research by the Trump administration.
...
The National Academies, which funded the report, selected a diverse committee of authors and reviewers, including former Trump administration officials and researchers with ties to the fossil fuel industry.
...
Contributors were required to disclose any conflicts of interest, including some authors who noted their investments in fossil fuel companies.
Martinez, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the methods used by the National Academies to produce its climate report differ from how the DOE team put together its document.
The National Academies committee included a diverse panel of contributors, solicited public comments in advance and considered input from more than 200 individuals and organizations before drafting its report.
The DOE report, on the other hand, includes just five authors — all of whom are known contrarians on the subject of mainstream climate science — and failed to reveal its reviewers at all. It also solicited public comments only after the draft report was published.
“Knowing that the DOE report had five climate contrarians, who have fringe thoughts related to the consensus on climate change, I think it is interesting that the makeup of this report has individuals from various industries, from various professions, that come to this conclusion,” Martinez said. “That speaks to what I believe is the nonpartisan nature of climate science.”
Courts weigh in
The DOE report is part of a legal battle now being waged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The latest step in the courtroom brawl played out as the National Academies’ report was published.
A federal judge on Wednesday rebuked DOE for the way its report was crafted — in secret and without following federal transparency laws — as part of a lawsuit brought by environmental groups that have argued it should not be considered in EPA’s effort to overturn the endangerment finding.
DOE officials argued the climate science report was merely a review of the scientific literature and that the process should not have been subject to transparency requirements under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
...
Judge William Young denied requests from the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists to block the report’s consideration in the endangerment finding rollback, but granted their claims about the way it was crafted.
“The conclusion of the report itself shows that it is no mere ‘review’ of the literature. To suggest otherwise borders on sophistry,” Young wrote. “No reasonable jury could find that these words, arranged as they are, do not constitute advice or recommendations for a renewed approach to climate policy.”
Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told POLITICO’s E&E News that a diversity of viewpoints from industry and academia was a priority to ensure the best available research was reviewed.
She compared that to the way the DOE report was launched, and she pushed back in advance against potential criticism.
“It was Chris Wright who selected the members of that study unilaterally, without any opportunity for comment,” she said. “To say that we have set up a process that is going to bias the outcome, seems to me a little ludicrous compared to how the DOE study, which has obviously triggered this, was conducted.” READ MORE