To Pursue Climate Goals, JetBlue Switches from Carbon Offsets to Sustainable Aviation Fuels (theverge.com) 41
"JetBlue is giving up carbon offsets for its domestic flights," reports the Verge, "shifting its focus instead to sustainable aviation fuels.
"It's a step that could help the airline actually reduce its emissions rather than relying primarily on controversial carbon offsets to counteract its fossil fuel use." Back in 2020, JetBlue became the first U.S. airline to voluntarily offset greenhouse gas emissions from all of its domestic flights. That effort ends in 2023, the company announced this week. The airline now plans to effectively cut its per-seat emissions in half by 2035. For flights to take off without generating as much pollution, JetBlue says its planes will need to run on sustainable aviation fuels.
JetBlue's announcement calls the move "a science-based target approved by the Science Based Targets initiative, a coalition that defines and promotes best practices in emissions reduction targets....
"[T]his science-based target aligns with the goals of the Paris Agreement and the growing airline's own goal to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2040 — 10 years ahead of broader airline industry targets." JetBlue also recognizes how critical external partners are to decarbonizing the aviation industry and is committed to encouraging and supporting efforts by aircraft and engine manufacturers, governments, regulatory agencies, and fuel suppliers to realize their own greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. "Effectively cutting our per-seat emissions in half will require substantial change to the way we run our business today," said Robin Hayes chief executive officer, JetBlue.
"Our team is fully committed to hitting the goal, but we can't do it alone. We are calling on governments, aircraft and engine manufacturers, and fuel producers to support the development of the products and solutions that airlines need to achieve our ambitious goals...."
"The aviation industry is at a critical time in our push towards net zero. Many of these lower carbon solutions are proven, but still haven't achieved the scale needed to make a meaningful impact," said Sara Bogdan, director of sustainability and environmental social governance, JetBlue. "Encouragement of these maturing technologies is needed and the investments we make today will help shape the trajectory of these solutions as they grow to realize their fullest potential."
"It's a step that could help the airline actually reduce its emissions rather than relying primarily on controversial carbon offsets to counteract its fossil fuel use." Back in 2020, JetBlue became the first U.S. airline to voluntarily offset greenhouse gas emissions from all of its domestic flights. That effort ends in 2023, the company announced this week. The airline now plans to effectively cut its per-seat emissions in half by 2035. For flights to take off without generating as much pollution, JetBlue says its planes will need to run on sustainable aviation fuels.
JetBlue's announcement calls the move "a science-based target approved by the Science Based Targets initiative, a coalition that defines and promotes best practices in emissions reduction targets....
"[T]his science-based target aligns with the goals of the Paris Agreement and the growing airline's own goal to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2040 — 10 years ahead of broader airline industry targets." JetBlue also recognizes how critical external partners are to decarbonizing the aviation industry and is committed to encouraging and supporting efforts by aircraft and engine manufacturers, governments, regulatory agencies, and fuel suppliers to realize their own greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. "Effectively cutting our per-seat emissions in half will require substantial change to the way we run our business today," said Robin Hayes chief executive officer, JetBlue.
"Our team is fully committed to hitting the goal, but we can't do it alone. We are calling on governments, aircraft and engine manufacturers, and fuel producers to support the development of the products and solutions that airlines need to achieve our ambitious goals...."
"The aviation industry is at a critical time in our push towards net zero. Many of these lower carbon solutions are proven, but still haven't achieved the scale needed to make a meaningful impact," said Sara Bogdan, director of sustainability and environmental social governance, JetBlue. "Encouragement of these maturing technologies is needed and the investments we make today will help shape the trajectory of these solutions as they grow to realize their fullest potential."
Um...what? (Score:5, Informative)
"sustainability" and "pollution" are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS.
Conflating them is flim-flammery of the highest order.
Wood-burning stoves are 'sustainable' - basically infinitely.
They are also highly pollutive.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, when there is no straight line to reduced emissions you can bet your sweet patoot it is a con job.
Same with carbon offsets. The tonnage load going into the atmosphere stays the same so how is it anything but a greenwash?
Re: (Score:2)
Same with carbon offsets. The tonnage load going into the atmosphere stays the same so how is it anything but a greenwash?
It depends on what you mean by offsets. If you mean cap and trade, it's pure bullshit through and through. If you mean projects which fix carbon being used to offset carbon emissions, they are only mostly bullshit in practice, but they are feasible in theory because atmospheric carbon is fungible.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, when there is no straight line to reduced emissions you can bet your sweet patoot it is a con job.
Same with carbon offsets. The tonnage load going into the atmosphere stays the same so how is it anything but a greenwash?
But the right people are making money from it, so it's all good.
Re:Um...what? (Score:4, Informative)
How polluting you consider a wood-burning stove depends on a number of factors. If all you are considering is CO2 output, then a sustainable wood-burning stove is part of a closed cycle where the CO2 produced is taken back in by trees in even proportion. On a local level, you can get other byproducts though Carbon monoxide, benzene, formaldehyde, ozone, etc. Of course, how much pollution wood burning produces usually depends on how well the wood actually burns. Most of the pollutants are the result of incomplete combustion. A wood stove designed for secondary combustion is a lot less polluting.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget scalable (Score:2)
Wood burning stoves are sustainable for a subset of the world population, if we all switched back to it for heating the forests would be gone.
Biofuel has the same problem, sustainable at small scale but not scalable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, sustainable and scalable are orthogonal. There are 1 or 2 scalable solutions and if the economy doesn't collapse and we get to net zero they will be what nearly everyone switches too. JetBlue's approach can still make economic sense, but it's only ever going to be fucking around in the margins of the SAF market. Synthesis from green hydrogen plus captured CO2 or bioreactors, take your very expensive pick for scalable green hydrocarbons. They together with liquid hydrogen are the only real net zero solut
Re: (Score:2)
Wood-burning stoves are carbon neutral. All the carbon they release was already in the troposphere.
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic so is burning oil. Wood-burning stoves are *only* carbon neutral if they burn wood that was planted for the express purpose of being burnt. Or at the very least if replacement forests are planted at a 1 to 1 rate.
We have enough evidence that this is not happening in any way. Cutting down forests and setting them on fire is not carbon neutral.
No longer buying indulgences from the church (Score:5, Insightful)
I consider buying carbon offsets to be much the same as buying indulgences from the church.
Either way you are paying to have your sins absolved.
Much better if they are going to stop sinning instead
Re: (Score:2)
The only way they can stop sinning is to change their propulsion method to mice running on treadmills.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way they can stop sinning is to change their propulsion method to mice running on treadmills.
PETA would like to have a word with you about that.
Re: (Score:1)
The difference is that pollution is real, unlike sin.
Re: (Score:1)
Hmmm....maybe if we fully tax the churches, we could put some of that money toward actually solving problems?
Look around, and start noticing how many churches are taking up valuable, otherwise tax generating, real estate.
Re: (Score:2)
What economic activity do you believe is being prevented by churches taking valuable real estate?
The answer is simply nothing that is otherwise not very marginal to begin with. In other word, we are not preventing a Microsoft or Tesla because we have allowed churches to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
As others have pointed out, "clean" jet fuel isn't available in mass quantities and Jet Blue doesn't have it's own infrastructure to move it around even if it was. Perhaps by not spending money on the credits they can move the needle a little on sustainable and/or clean fuel availability by investing there.
Buying offsets
Re: (Score:3)
The cost of the credits incentivizes the market to find solutions to reduce carbon output.
If you want a market to efficiently allocate a resource it has to have a price, even if it's an artificial price.
Re: (Score:3)
"I consider buying carbon offsets to be much the same as buying indulgences from the church."
Please describe your method for pricing external costs into a market.
Nice horseshit. Well done. (Score:2)
I have an aggressive goal to shed 50 pounds in 6 months. However, I require the industry to invent calorie free butter and popcorn, and steaks that your burn more calories eating than you get from the food.
If I seem to fail it's because others failed me.
Re: (Score:3)
They are using existing technology. They are switching to less polluting aviation fuels that already exist. Specifically aviation fuel made from agricultural products rather than petroleum.
Yes, they are looking for zero-emissions fuels which do not exist. But that is on top of switching fuels to the lower emission fuels.
Note, I am against ground based agricultural fuels. The amount of gasoline we use is WELL over 100 billion gallons, while aviation is under 20 billion gallons. We cannot switch gasolin
Re: (Score:3)
Well considered and thoughtful response. Thank you.
I focused on the part where they called on everybody to develop the products to help the goals, but, yes, I can see ancillary benefits. Your point is made.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they are looking for zero-emissions fuels which do not exist. But that is on top of switching fuels to the lower emission fuels.
Don't you mean, "do not exist yet?" There really hasn't been any effort put in to making a zero-emissions jet fuel. Maybe with Jet Blue leading the way other airlines will get on board.
On another note, I'm not sure this is really an issue. Air travel accounts for about 2% of the carbon emissions. With the decline of air travel, and more efficient aircraft this might be a self-correcting problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, no. You can't have a fuel with no emissions, period. Arguably, you can't even have one with no detrimental emissions. Even using hydrogen, in the very best case you will be emitting water vapor, which is a GHG. There will be emissions.
On the other hand, you could theoretically have a fuel with zero net emissions. Even the water could be accounted for, if your process condenses atmospheric water. But to get there, basically the whole production process has to run on direct solar thermal energy or simil
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you have a point and I contend no matter how we wish it we will never have a zero emissions society. There will always be CO2 emissions. What we have to do is keep them below what the environment can handle.
With airline travel below 2% of overall emissions, I'm not sure this is a big deal. As long as we get other sources under control.
Re:Nice horseshit. Well done. (Score:4, Interesting)
However, I require the industry to invent calorie free butter and popcorn
There's nothing to be invented here. Sustainable Aviation Fuel was invented in 2008. Around about 2015 all major oil producers presented examples of production of SAF at scale. Currently 0.1% of the world's flights are already on SAF, in some countries its an order of magnitude higher. Companies like Neste already are producing double digit million gallons of the stuff per year, and intend to increase production by an order of magnitude next year.
I know for a fact that a specific oil major has broken ground on 3 refineries which serve large airports to build a full volume production units (reads: replace all Jet-A1 production with SAF for that large airport) as I'm directly involved with that project. And by what I gather from the industry talking to UOP and Technip folks, this specific oil major is a bit behind with their plans to have plants operational within the next 3 years as several majors are already firing up large scale SAF production units.
It's sad so say but the oil industry is in a far better place than your delusional diet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And where is this energy required to make SAF coming from?
The strawmen people build up when their arguments fall apart.
The carbon emissions of production of SAF is no different to the production of kerosine, and even if they were worse they are a metaphorical piss in the Atlantic ocean compared to actually setting the final product on fire in an engine.
Nice PR goal, but... (Score:3)
First, where are they getting all of this non-fossil-derived jet fuel? I wasn't aware of any breakthrough that would allow large quantities of fuel to be produced today (well, in three weeks I guess, when 2023 starts).
Second, AFAIK JetBlue isn't in the pipeline and storage business, so how are they going to get this magic fuel (that other airlines aren't)? Planes don't cruise around to their own gas stations, they fuel at the airports from large depots. Everybody at that airport gets their fuel from the same place.
Re:Nice PR goal, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
First, where are they getting all of this non-fossil-derived jet fuel? I wasn't aware of any breakthrough that would allow large quantities of fuel to be produced today (well, in three weeks I guess, when 2023 starts).
If you thought a breakthrough was needed for this to happen, you don't know anything about the topic. If you just put the lipid feedstock into a fractional distillation column and make fuel out of it that way instead of via transesterification, then what you get out of the process is generally indistinguishable from diesel. Making a jet fuel was just a matter of diddling additives, as there is virtually no difference between jet fuel and diesel. (Jet fuel tends to have more sulfur.) This kind of fuel is fairly readily available as a road fuel already (See: Propel Fuels)
Second, AFAIK JetBlue isn't in the pipeline and storage business, so how are they going to get this magic fuel (that other airlines aren't)?
Well, when a refinery and an airline love each other very much, they put the fuel into a truck...
Everybody at that airport gets their fuel from the same place.
One presumes tanks are being dedicated to the purpose. You do realize that all the airlines are going to do this eventually [energy.gov], right?
Re:Nice PR goal, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
First, where are they getting all of this non-fossil-derived jet fuel? I wasn't aware of any breakthrough that would allow large quantities of fuel to be produced today (well, in three weeks I guess, when 2023 starts).
You don't need a breakthrough. Sustainable Aviation Fuel has been on the market since around 2008. There are several suppliers in the world and currently it makes up 0.1% of all aviation fuel. That sounds like nothing except that given the volumes we are talking about it this number should make clear that SAF is well beyond the point of "pilot plants" and actually in commercial production. In face most licensors got high volume units operational over 5 years ago. The French already have regulations in place that 1% of all aviation fuel must be SAF.
No need for a breakthrough, just go to Honeywell UOP and give them some money and say you want to build one of their Ecofiners, and get busy. Don't like Americans, go to Technip and build a Hummingbird based plant. Or develop your own like Exxon and Shell.
Currently basically every [shell.com] major [totalenergies.com] oil [bp.com] company [exxonmobilchemical.com] is in the process of a global rollout of SAF plants/conversions in their existing refineries. And then you have specialist producers like Neste who are planning to increase production capacity from 34million gallons/yr to 520million gallons/yr by the end of next year. (That's a 15x increase in 2023 over what one single producer has available right now for those who are keeping track).
Second, AFAIK JetBlue isn't in the pipeline and storage business, so how are they going to get this magic fuel (that other airlines aren't)?
Buy it like a normal small airline. Basically every major airport has on-site tank facilities with pipeline *and* truck-loading facilities. Most airports will carry the fuels required generally and on-sell them but also provide tanks for customer products on demand. JetBlue just needs to get out their purse and tell the airport they operate at that they wish to have SAF supplied to fill their planes.
That's before you consider that some airports are well ahead of the game already and are offering airlines incentives to sell them SAF which they already have in stock.
TL;DR: Supply won't be an issue.
Maybe something like this?? (Score:2)
I don't know if this is what JetBlue intends.
Re: (Score:3)
JetBlue intends to just buy SAF. SAF is already in production in many places in the world and it doesn't all come from bio ethanol (though that's the core of Technip's process). Other processes use spent cooking oil, tallow, or even non-food based agriculture that is often wasted. Neste is even producing it from algae.
Bottom line is it's not all connected to any kind of traditional farming.
Ridiculous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Carbon offset should be forbidden. It's ridiculous for one company to sell its carbon points to a polluter so the polluter can go on doing its filthy business.
Even though carbon offsets don't directly change any amounts of CO2 in the air, there is potentially a tax/subsidy effect on competitors in the same market. For example, for EVs, Tesla gets a government subsidy while GM and Ford pay an extra tax. The offsets are just a mechanism for creating the subsidies and taxes. The hope is that eventually the subsidy/tax mechanism will force companies to "do the right thing." That's what happens in countries that either are ostensibly regulation-free or are beholde
Re: (Score:3)
That's cap and trade, and yes, it's something a simple carbon tax does better.
Carbon offsets are the idea that some activities, air transport being a good example, are extremely difficult to do without emitting carbon so you "offset" that activity by doing something that absorbs carbon. Planting trees is the favourite. It's not a bad idea, it's just that enforcement and verification aren't great.
Like the smell of fries in your bleed air? (Score:1)
I guess it's better than the smell of unburned fuel and bits of toasted lubricant. Those would still be there of course...they'd just be masked out by the potatoey goodness.
Meanwhile, in Long Island... (Score:2)
"But won't people just go to another airline?" "Ivan, you silly capitalist. We just have to make sure that our comrades in the federal government and the People's Republic of Kalifornia mandate using waste oil."
"Is there even going to be enough waste oil?" "Ivan, this benefits everybody! So we push people into buying more fried food which is an economic