60 Reasons to Protest: Reason #25 – Greenwashing
The aviation industry’s widespread greenwashing is an issue we should pay attention to. Why? Two reasons: 1. It provides further evidence that they are lying and misleading consumers with false claims. 2. Greenwashing makes uncritical consumers feel good about unsustainable consumption choices so they consume more. More demand = more flights = more noise. The aviation industry’s greenwashing must stop. This will be good for the climate and for net noise reductions.
What is greenwashing?
Greenwashing in the aviation industry refers to deceptive practices employed by airports and airlines to present themselves as environmentally friendly or sustainable, while their actual impact on the environment remains significant. It involves using misleading marketing tactics to create a positive public perception of their environmental efforts, often exaggerating or misrepresenting their initiatives.
More and more cases are being investigated and challenged by consumer groups, regulators and shareholders. For example, in 2022, Dutch environmental group Fossielvrij NL has filed a lawsuit against KLM, accusing the airline of greenwashing. The lawsuit alleges that KLM’s “Fly Responsibly” ad campaign, which promotes the airline’s efforts to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, is misleading and violates the European Union’s Unfair Consumer Practices Directive. Fossielvrij NL argues that sustainable aviation is an oxymoron and that the only genuine sustainability practice for airlines is to reduce the number of flights.
This year, the UK advertising watchdog, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), has banned an ad campaign by Etihad Airways for being misleading about the environmental impact of flying. The campaign promoted Etihad’s “louder, bolder approach to sustainable aviation” and claimed the airline was the “Environmental Airline of the Year 2022.” However, the ASA found that there were no initiatives or technologies in the aviation industry to substantiate the claim of “sustainable aviation.” The ruling is part of the ASA’s crackdown on misleading green claims by companies. Etihad is the latest airline to face such action, following Lufthansa and others.
Etihad Airways is under scrutiny in Australia, too, for alleged climate greenwashing. Flight Free Australia has lodged a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), accusing Etihad of misleading and deceptive conduct through its advertisements. The complaint focuses on two ads displayed during a soccer match in 2022, which featured phrases such as “Flying shouldn’t cost the earth” and “Net zero emissions by 2050” alongside the Etihad logo. Flight Free Australia argues that these ads create the false impression that flying with Etihad has minimal environmental impact and that the airline has credible plans to achieve net zero emissions. The group claims that Etihad’s emissions reduction initiatives are untested and rely on speculative technology and offsetting, and accuses the airline of underreporting its emissions. The ACCC will investigate the complaint as part of its scrutiny of climate and sustainability claims.
What about Sustainable Aviation Fuel?
The aviation industry’s greenwashing regularly relies on techno-fixes such as “Sustainable Aviation Fuel” (SAF). There are many issues with relying on SAF as a way to make aviation climate neutral, e.g.:
- Insufficient production capacity: There is not enough land or renewable energy potential on Earth to produce the amount of sustainable aviation fuel needed to meet the demand of the aviation industry.
- High cost: Currently, sustainable aviation fuel is more expensive than fossil jet fuel, making it economically challenging for airlines to transition to these fuels on a large scale.
- Environmental concerns: The production of sustainable aviation fuel from biomass and other organic matter raises serious environmental concerns. It requires a significant amount of biomass and clean energy, which can compete with other industries such as agriculture and food production that also rely on these resources. Additionally, the conversion process leads to a loss of energy and can result in greenhouse gas emissions.
- Incomplete solution: Sustainable aviation fuel addresses carbon dioxide emissions but does not effectively tackle other aviation emissions such as nitrogen oxides, water vapor, and soot. Airlines and airports have opposed measures to combat the climate impact of jet vapor trails, or contrails, which evidence suggests account for more than half of the aviation industry’s climate impact. The industry argued that the science regarding non-CO2 emissions was not robust enough to justify reduction targets. However, scientists have known about the climate impact of contrails for over two decades. Contrails, formed when water vapor and soot particles freeze into ice crystals, trap heat in the atmosphere, contributing to global heating.
- Too late: Independent analysis, including reports from the UK Royal Society and Imperial College, suggests that proposed technological solutions will not be effective within the necessary timeframe. The Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport (Galba) argues that the aviation industry is using greenwashing as a veneer underneath which they maintain a business-as-usual approach causing increasing emissions.
Given these challenges, relying solely on sustainable aviation fuels is seen as unrealistic and irresponsible. Instead, investment should be directed towards lower-carbon forms of transportation like high-speed rail, and a shift in mindset regarding travel frequency and distance is necessary for the traveling public.
BFPCA is a member Stay Grounded, a people-powered, science-based, and action-oriented network of more than 200+ member initiatives around the world. Stay Grounded have published a series of fact sheets to debunk the greenwashing claims by the aviation industry covering:
- Efficiency
- Electric Flight
- Hydrogen
- Biofuels
- E-fuels
- Net Zero
What about airports?
Brisbane Airport says it wants to be carbon-neutral by 2025. Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, in her role as Brisbane Airport Corporation spokesperson, declared on 13 Nov 2022:
“Today we’re announcing that Brisbane Airport will be 100% powered by renewable energy.”
On 27 Feb 2023, BAC CEO Gert-Jan de Graaff doubled down in an interview being asked what makes a sustainable world-leading airport city?
For us, it’s building an airport city that generations of the people of Brisbane can be proud of. It’s an airport that connects them to the world while having as light a touch on that world as possible. It’s about creating an airport that looks after its local environment, supports its community and grows responsibly.
Stay Grounded also explain why the carbon neutrality of airports such as BAC is fake:
Some airports claim carbon neutrality but this is a fallacy because it only concerns a very small part of their emissions. The emissions included are confined to Scope 1 (emissions from airport controlled sources, e.g. buildings) and Scope 2 (emissions from energy purchased by the airport).
88 airports around the world claim to be carbon neutral. This label has been awarded to them by ACA12, an organisation belonging to the Airports Council International (ACI). It means that these airports have taken steps to reduce and/or offset (by purchasing carbon credits) the emissions over which they consider themselves to have control. Some are for example building solar farms on their premises or planting trees and presenting that as an offset. They see no obligation to reduce (or offset) Scope 3 ‘indirect’ emissions, because they are considered not under the airport’s direct control, although they account for more than 99% of total emissions related to airports. Most of these emissions are from flights and from ground transport used by passengers and airport workers travelling to/from an airport.
What needs to happen?
The aviation industry must stop the lies and the greenwashing. It needs to engage in a constructive debate about how to balance growth with ambitions for climate-positive travel and mobility. The industry’s current decarbonisation strategies are not sufficient to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, especially as air travel now rebounds after the pandemic. Governments must increasingly target the industry with measures like fuel taxes and frequent flyer levies, making it necessary for the industry to proactively and address climate concerns and explore genuine ways to reduce emissions more drastically and urgently. Ignoring or resisting demand management measures will be a mistake.
Register for the BFPCA protest:
Discuss this in the BFPCA Facebook group:
