The U.S. is poised to object later this month to a recommendation from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). U.S. officials argue that ICAO’s recent proposal unfairly favors Brazilian corn farmers in the production of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).
According to a report by Reuters, the U.S. objection stems from ICAO’s recent recommendation that awards a lower carbon score to multicropping, a common South American farming practice where two or more crops are grown on the same parcel of land. Due to climatic disadvantages, multicropping is not a common practice available to many farmers in the U.S. The lower carbon score would give Brazilian farmers a leg up in the growing global SAF market.
The short-term viability of SAF has come into question under the Trump administration. In March, the U.S. Department of Energy quietly updated websites, changing “sustainable” aviation fuel to “synthetic.” The administration has also remained noncommittal on potentially extending the 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit, a Biden-era tax credit aimed at boosting SAF production. That policy expires in 2027.
Despite potential U.S. pessimism towards SAF, the global market for SAF continues to grow, largely due to mandates put forth by the European Union under the ReFuelEU Aviation Agreement. Currently, the EU requires 2% of fuel made available at airports to be SAF. That requirement increases to 6% in 2030 and then leaps to 70% by 2050.
In 2024, SAF accounted for less than 1% of global jet fuel usage. Estimates from the International Air Transport Association (IATA) project the cost of meeting the EU’s goals by 2050 at $4.7 trillion.
In a March statement on the ICAO proposal, the U.S. State Department cited the executive order “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements,” signed by President Trump on the day of his inauguration. The order, intended to protect American economic interest in international environmental deals, states: “The United States must grow its economy and maintain jobs for its citizens while playing a leadership role in global efforts to protect the environment.”
U.S. Expected To Object To An ICAO SAF Policy
American corn growers seen to be at a market disadvantage.
" The order, intended to protect American economic interest in international environmental deals, states: “The United States must grow its economy and maintain jobs for its citizens while playing a leadership role in global efforts to protect the environment.
When “playing a leadership role in global efforts to protect the environment” becomes “protecting American economic interest in environmental deals” it’s called transmogrification - or, y’all just too obtuse to see what we’re up to.
Stay sharp, Brazil.
The US should ban the use of SAF and ethanol, as they are both fully dependent on government coercion and subsidies. Grain should be used for food and feed, not for fuel. Our policy should be to frack and drill everywhere to lower the cost of fossil fuels, the best by far for aviation.
SAF and ethanol have always had everything to do with protecting the corn growers and nothing to do with protecting the environment.
True. And what about protecting fossil fuel interests??? Why should taxpayers pay the tab for that?
… says the spastic patella who grew up with the benefits of other such government coercions as rural electrification, clean water, compulsory education, FDIC, SBA loans, MMR vaccine research, subsidized college education, and cheap gas that was fracked nowhere near him.
So it’s not surprising that he would espouse accelerating the depletion of a non-renewable resource over a sustainable one that doesn’t yet have the benefit of 160 years of development for aviation.
Read some real economics, for instance the meaning of “lost opportunity costs”, why the private sector is ALWAYS superior to a so-called “government solution”. How many times since the 50s have we been told that our fossil fuels are near depletion, only to have smart Americans figure out ways to increase yields and lower costs? Read Alex Epstein’s “Fossil Future”.
You actually make my point on the folly of depending on government aid or coercion to advance a technology for which no market exists. In this case, using food to make a bio fuel to save the planet from a non-existent problem, the myth that plant food (Co2) is a hazard to our environment. Rural electrification - worked well and cheap before government meddling. Clean water - exists since Biblical times. Compulsory education - our country had a 99% literacy rate before the government got involved; now we rank far down in the world in government school results but tops in spending on these failed schools. Subsidized college has exploded its costs - I paid about $700 for my final year of undergraduate studies at Auburn in 1979, and got a better education than today, worked my way through college. FDIC? A Ponzi scheme. SBA loans? A source of widespread corruption - best is to live and work debt free. Cheap gas is thanks to God and brilliant American engineers who invented oil refining, transport, fracking and directional drilling - despite government meddling. “Liberty is always freedom from the government.” Ludwig von Mises
It is highly I will pay ANY attention to ANY of your comments in the future, Kent. While you seem to offer some reasonably thought out contributions to the conversation, you seem to think that we want to hear your rants about anything and everything that have nothing to do with the topic. There is freedom of speech, and there’s also freedom to not listen to anything like what you say.
Hi Chuck. My original comments were very much on topic - we should not use food / feed as fuel. Aviatrexx responded in the usual fashion among the ignorant by name-calling. He backed up his disagreement with supposed examples how government meddling supposedly helps industry, to which I strongly disagree. In my nearly 50 years engineering experience I have worked in the energy and aviation industries, and used to write a column (for GA News) on fuels and powerplants for aircraft. I know what I am talking about. A forum is a place to exchange ideas, and everyone has a right to his opnion, and a right to being offended by other comments. Back to topic - bake bread from grain, get aviation fuel from Dinosaurs.
‘Aviatrexx responded in the usual fashion among the ignorant by name-calling.’
Priceless.
“And what about protecting fossil fuel interests??? Why should taxpayers pay the tab for that?”
According to the International Monetary Fund, in 2023 federal subsidies to the fossil fuel industry was $757 billion, while in that same year the oil and gas industry earned over $2.6 trillion. We’ve spent over two trillion dollars in subsidies to drug companies, oil companies, gas companies and agriculture in recent years.
It has always been Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor. Always. We now have a system inferring the rich are too poor and the poor too rich.
Your federal government is in the hands of a philistine conman. As the world develops and progresses toward greater sustainability in all areas including aviation fuels, the US resists - and unknowingly creates an unnecessary suspension of American exceptionalism, which is now held in thought only as merely a fleeting construct.
Strange times.
In practice, ethanol is soil mining, which isn’t really sustainable…
If you read the user’s guide, you’ll come across Muting or Ignoring Other Forum Users.
You’re welcome.
Unfortunately, all the current SAF efforts to replace the current petroleum fuels used in aircraft are all green washing and a wasted effort because they will all create more damage to the environment than just continuing on with the petroleum fuel that is already in use.
It was thought that corn ethanol would be better for the environment than the product it was to replace, but studies have found that is not the case. It is actually worse for the environment.
The same thing is happening all over again and once the studies come in, they will show that the SAF alternate fuels will also be worse for the environment than just continuing with the petroleum fuel now available.
Currently the best efforts will be to improve efficiency.
Possibly in the future with better batteries, such as solid-state batteries there might be some possibilities to reduce the environmental damage that can be caused by operating an aircraft.