Contribution
For many years, I commuted by aircraft from Scotland to Dublin—so many years, in fact, that I can still recall there are eight emergency exits on a Boeing 737-800. There are two at the front, two at the rear and four over-wing exits. What a great pity that this Bill does not have an amendment that is an escape slide.
While sustainable aviation fuel sounds wonderful, it is burdened with many inconvenient facts. The first is that there is no SAF production industry at the scale required. While new clause 1 is a bold attempt to jump-start production by repurposing old facilities, it is a jumbo jet of a task. The World Economic Forum estimates that by 2030, global demand for SAF is expected to reach 70 million tonnes per annum—around 4% to 5% of total jet fuel consumption.
Meeting likely demand in just five years requires an additional 5.8 million tonnes of capacity. What is the investment required to reach even that relatively modest goal? The WEF pitches it at somewhere between $19 billion and $45 billion globally. If that does not give our legislative autopilot the warning, “Terrain! Terrain! Pull up!”, then it should do. New clause 1 is unaffordable, whether backed by public or private finance, and I am afraid it is doomed to fail.
It is certain that the vast input costs will result in massively higher costs for passengers and air freight. I support the vital new clause 6, which would force an assessment of the economic impact of this Bill, which I fear will be nothing short of devastating. Some might piously accept fewer flights to the Costas or a little less airfreighted Kenyan mangetout on the dinner table, but making air travel ruinously expensive will have implications for thousands of jobs—millions globally—in not only aviation, but tourism. Many flights are not indulgences, but lifelines. We are an island nation, and many communities within the UK are entirely reliant on air links.
Will Britain—so long the pioneers of aviation, with a history stretching back to the first scheduled international passenger flight and the first jet airliner—be foremost in SAF? Probably not, for mandating SAF is easier than producing it, especially in a country with power prices as exorbitant as ours. Energy bills in Dumfries in my constituency are four times what they are in Dumfries in Virginia in the United States, and they are cheaper still in China.
We need a lot of power to make SAF. Many question its green credentials when so much carbon is generated in its production. Amendment 10 is a bid to explore the serious issues around SAF derived from either organic or synthetic sources. Much is made of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases using SAF sourced from waste fat and oil feedstocks, but, as we have heard, those basic building blocks are in limited supply. That issue is also addressed in, though not solved by, new clause 2. Using crops as feedstock may not reduce greenhouse gases at all, and there are huge implications of turning prime agricultural land and billions of gallons of water over to producing crops for fuel, rather than food. Again, Britain is at a disadvantage. America’s vast corn belt might get involved, but the British bioethanol industry is a warning to us, for it was not able to survive on current targets for the content in road fuel.
Other amendments, including amendment 11, concern themselves with how a revenue certainty mechanism will operate. My concern is that we risk creating a self-licking ice cream—a self-perpetuating system with no purpose other than to sustain itself. This Bill could guarantee moneys that simply offset the costs of manufacturing SAF, which is itself made expensive by green levies. Would it not be better to put what money we have available into aviation excellence, driving up the efficiency of jet engines and airframes? Aviation is already playing its part in reducing its carbon footprint—according to some experts, engine efficiency is already up by as much as 83% from the early days of the de Havilland Comet jet liner. That progress can continue, although super-efficient jets need superalloys to handle the extremes of temperature in their engines, and those require the sorts of rare earths that China is hoovering up. Canada, by the way, has many of the same critical minerals; might we be better off investing in those than subsidising SAF?
If we want really big carbon savings, we ought to look to the sea. Much of what we trade—in and out—goes by sea, and cargo ships are heavily reliant on bunker oil, a tar-like substance with heavy emissions. If we want novel fuels, this island nation should look once more to Tennyson’s “boundless deep”, where the salt-caked smoke stacks belch still. Meanwhile, the wild blue yonder of the skies must not be made inaccessible simply by expensive green dogma.