Singapore’s government kicked off proceedings with the announcement that from 2026 it will force airlines to adopt sustainable aviation fuels — that emit up to 80% less carbon than kerosene — and hit passengers with a levy to fund the move. An economy-class ticket from Singapore to London will cost S$16 ($12) more based on current projections, Transport Minister Chee Hong Tat said, with higher rates for premium classes.
Instead of kicking up a fuss, the industry gave tepid support. “The cost of the transition to net zero will be expensive,” International Air Transport Association Director General Willie Walsh noted. The SAF levy “goes in the right direction,” Airbus SE’s Commercial Aircraft chief executive Christian Scherer said.
Although Singapore’s new tax is aimed at sustainability, it’s not very innovative. Fuel surcharges have been around a long time, serving as a convenient way for carriers to pass costs to customers in line with fluctuating oil prices. Local authorities and airports often tack on additional expenses ranging from departure taxes to segment fees.
This is an extra charge the carriers can get behind. The net cost may be the same, but this way the airline can list a lower price to passengers. And that extra line item on the ticket price is a chance for some feel-good marketing. More importantly, though, the levy will be used to help fill the cost gap between conventional jet fuel and SAF, which is three to five times more expensive. In purchasing such biofuels directly, the government is subsidizing the cost of building SAF capacity by artificially inflating demand, which ensures suppliers have stable future revenue to fund expansion. Rather than refiners and airlines footing the whole bill, Singapore’s government is ensuring the aviation public wears the cost directly. Airbus is also keen on embracing the move, and flew an A350 fueled by a 35% blend to Singapore to demonstrate its commitment.But history shows that these biofuels are less environmentally friendly than industry would have you believe. Theoretically, waste such as cooking oil can serve as feedstock for SAF that come from plants instead of fossil fuels, but collection and processing is expensive and inefficient. The easier solution has been just to grow more crops. US policies to increase the amount of ethanol used in cars arguably helped American corn farmers more than the planet, since much of the electricity supplied to the distilleries is powered by coal.
In Singapore, palm oil is likely to be the crop of choice, with land owners in neighboring Malaysia and Indonesia the biggest beneficiaries. And it’s worth considering the environmental degradation and labor abuses that will hit the industry. While we often decry destruction of the Amazon rainforest in order to feed the world Big Macs, it would be a tragedy if the aviation sector were to start us down a similar path in a bid to burnish its green credentials.
Yet there’s a reason industry leaders feel like they must.
Most of the environmental improvements to be found in aviation have already been achieved. A move to composite materials from aluminum has made aircraft lighter, while ongoing tweaks to designs have made them more sleek. For example, putting an upward bend to the end of a wing — called a winglet — reduces drag and cuts fuel use by 6.5%, according to one study.
This drive for efficiency had tragic consequences. Boeing Co. upgraded its 737 jet by giving it a larger and more fuel-efficient engine. To quickly accommodate this bigger size and ensure enough ground clearance, Boeing simply moved the engine forward and higher on the existing wing. That caused the the 737 Max 8 to be unbalanced, which the aircraft-maker fixed with the addition of flight-control software. Pilots were unaware of the changes, leading to at least two fatal crashes and forcing the industry to proceed more cautiously.
Although aircraft and engine makers are still trying to make their products lighter, sleeker and more fuel efficient, gains are diminishing. Now it’s up to how carriers operate these massive machines — cut baggage allowances, remove inflight duty-free, install lighter food carts.
Or use sustainable aviation fuel, which IATA estimates will provide the majority of the industry’s cut in carbon emissions over the next 25 years. In reality, filling tanks with 6% SAF by 2030 will cut carbon emissions by barely 5% — less impact than bending a wingtip — while longer-term plans to hit 70% by 2050 look unachievable without large-scale forest clearing.
But it does make for good marketing. After all, airlines find it easier to sell carbon offsets and pass on sustainability levies than force passengers to reduce baggage or forego inflight duty-free sales. At least one of these moves burnishes a company’s green credentials.
