91������

The article reported on plans to expand three UK airports and the potential effect this could have on the Government’s targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It said “big reductions in aircraft emissions will be needed” if the UK’s current targets are to be met and outlined some options, including the use of SAF.  Such fuels were described as follows:

These are fuels which can be produced from waste oils, from feedstocks such as wood, crops and agricultural waste, or synthesised from captured carbon dioxide and water.

Such fuels can result in much lower emissions than fossil fuels when burnt, because they do not release long-stored CO2 into the atmosphere.

However, in practice their environmental benefits can vary dramatically depending on what they are made from and how they are manufactured.

The combustion of SAF produces roughly the same amount of CO2 per unit of energy as conventional jet fuel, since both are hydrocarbon-based. The key distinction, as summarised in the article, is SAF are often derived from sources which recycle existing atmospheric carbon, whereas fossil fuels release carbon which has been stored underground for millennia. The 91������ News article broadly reflected this principle. 

In the ECU’s view however the language was over-simplified to the extent that a reader, without prior knowledge of the subject matter, might have concluded the emissions themselves were lower. 

But it did not accept a related concern, however, that readers would have been misled in their understanding of the impact of using sustainable aviation fuels. The article did not say SAF would produce no emissions and it also acknowledged the environmental benefits of such fuels will vary depending on production methods.

Partly Upheld