Flying Green or Just Greenwashing? Is Your Plane Saving the Planet or Just Selling You a €9 Seat?

By Lovnish Julka (4/6/25) — Paris, France

Every time I board a plane, I promise myself, this is definitely my last unnecessary flight. And then, two weeks later, I find myself booking a €19 Ryanair ticket to Italy because, when will flights ever be this cheap again?  

Air travel is a modern miracle—we can cross continents in hours, sip overpriced airport lattes in multiple time zones, and lose our luggage in record time. But it’s also a massive environmental disaster. Aviation accounts for 2.5% of global CO₂ emissions, and that number is only climbing. Airlines claim they have a solution: Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), electric planes, and carbon offsets. But are they actually doing anything to fix the problem, or is this just an elaborate PR stunt to make us feel less guilty about our weekend getaways? 

Sustainable Aviation Fuel: The Industry’s Favorite Magic Trick

Let’s talk about Sustainable Aviation Fuel—SAF for short (because even climate solutions need snappy acronyms). Heralded as the aviation industry’s golden ticket to redemption, SAF is a next-gen alternative to traditional jet fuel, made from renewable resources like used cooking oil, agricultural waste, algae, and in some cases, municipal solid waste (yes, literal trash is now fuel). It's as if your leftover fries and compost bin teamed up to fly a plane.

The appeal? SAF can reportedly reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80% compared to regular jet fuel. That’s like giving the planet a much-needed oxygen mask at 30,000 feet. No wonder airlines are obsessed with it—on paper, it’s sustainable, scalable, and sounds really good in press releases.

But here’s the plot twist: Despite all the hype, SAF currently accounts for less than 0.3% of global aviation fuel consumption. That’s not a typo. That’s like bringing one reusable fork to an all-you-can-eat buffet and calling yourself eco-friendly. While production is increasing, supply remains scarce, costs are sky-high, and infrastructure is still catching up—making SAF more of a climate aspiration than an aviation revolution... at least for now.

But hey, who wouldn’t want to fly on a plane powered by salad dressing leftovers?

Of course, all of this sounds great in theory, but how does it actually feel from the passenger seat (you know, the one without legroom)? I asked Camille, a student at Sorbonne, what she thought about it all.

“Oh yes, airlines say they’re using sustainable fuel. Meanwhile, I just paid €70 for a carry-on. Maybe they should start by being ‘sustainable’ with their pricing first.” 

She has a point. The problem with SAF is that it’s wildly expensive and barely available. It’s like saying you’re eating healthy because you bought one organic avocado, even though 99% of your diet is still instant ramen.  

Even Air France-KLM and Lufthansa—who are supposedly leading the charge—have admitted they’re struggling to hit the EU’s 6% SAF usage target by 2030.

Translation: We’d love to use more SAF, but have you seen how much it costs?  

Electric Planes: The Future or Just a Sci-Fi Fantasy?  

If SAF doesn’t work, what about electric planes? Battery-powered aircrafts sound cool in theory—cleaner, quieter, and way better for the environment.  

The issue? Batteries are heavy and weak compared to jet fuel. Right now, an electric plane can go about 500 miles before it needs to recharge. That’s fine for a quick Paris-London hop, but not ideal if you’re trying to cross the Atlantic. Unless, of course, you don’t mind stopping in Greenland for a four-hour charging session.  

I mentioned this to Louis, another Sorbonne student who flies home to Lyon often.  

“Electric planes? Sure, sounds nice. But if I have to recharge my plane like I do my phone, I think I’ll stick to the train.”

Fair. While companies like Airbus and Heart Aerospace are making progress, we’re still decades away from electric planes replacing long-haul flights. Right now, electric aviation is more of a fun future concept—kind of like hoverboards, but slightly more realistic. 

Carbon Offsets: Paying for Airline Sins?

Since SAF and electric planes aren’t really saving us yet, airlines have turned to carbon offsets—aka, “Pay us extra, and we’ll plant some trees to make up for your flight.”  

This sounds great until you realize that most carbon offset programs are about as reliable as a Ryanair baggage policy. Many offset projects lack transparency, and there’s little proof that they actually cancel out emissions.  

I asked Élodie, another student at Sorbonne, if she ever pays for carbon offsets.

Since SAF and electric planes aren’t really saving us yet, airlines have turned to carbon offsets—aka, “Pay us extra, and we’ll plant some trees to make up for your flight.”  

This sounds great until you realize that most carbon offset programs are about as reliable as a Ryanair baggage policy. Many offset projects lack transparency, and there’s little proof that they actually cancel out emissions.  

I asked Élodie, another student at Sorbonne, if she ever pays for carbon offsets.  

“Why would I pay €10 for a tree when I could buy a coffee at the airport and at least stay awake for my 6 AM flight?”

Honestly? A valid point. At best, carbon offsets are a band-aid solution. At worst, they’re a clever way for airlines to keep polluting while making us feel better about it.

For many travelers, carbon offsetting feels less like environmental action and more like checking a “Do-Gooder” box at checkout. There’s a growing sense of distrust—are these trees actually being planted? Are they surviving? Or did I just fund someone's backyard herb garden and call it climate justice?

Some consumers feel like they’re being asked to clean up after airlines, footing the bill for emissions the industry isn’t truly committed to eliminating. The vibe is less “eco-conscious partnership” and more “corporate guilt outsourcing.”

It’s no surprise, then, that many passengers would rather invest in caffeine than carbon credits. After all, the coffee is real, and at least it shows up.

So, Is Green Aviation a Joke?  

Not exactly. SAF, electric planes, and carbon offsets are steps in the right direction. The problem is that they’re moving at the speed of an airport security line while the climate crisis is racing ahead like a late passenger sprinting to Gate 47.  

But let’s be honest: The real issue isn’t just the airlines—it’s us.  

Would we actually fly less if it meant helping the planet? Would we choose a 12-hour train ride over a 2-hour flight? Would we stop booking €19 tickets just because we found a last-minute flight to Spain?  

I’d love to say yes, but I also know that if Ryanair emails me about a €9 flight to Milan, I’ll probably book it before I finish writing this sentence.  

For now, the future of aviation is still up in the air—literally. But one thing’s clear: If airlines don’t move faster, the only thing taking off will be climate disaster.