Pledge vs Doubt

At a recent global aviation summit, industry leaders doubled down on a bold promise: net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. This pledge, endorsed by over 350 airlines via the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and formalized as a UN-backed goal through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) signals clear intentions by aviation to fight climate change. Yet behind the confident slogans, doubts are mounting. At IATA’s June 2025 meeting in New Delhi, executives publicly reaffirmed their commitment to net-zero 2050, even as some privately questioned whether that target is realistic. Enthusiasm for the energy transition appears to be waning, with industry insiders citing turbulence ahead. Two years after loudly embracing Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) goals, the aviation sector remains steadfast on paper, “still committed to net zero, for now,” as one commentary wryly noted but skepticism about the path forward is growing (Reuters).

A core source of doubt is the disconnect between ambition and concrete action plans. ICAO’s Long-Term Aspirational Goal (LTAG) of net-zero by 2050 for international flights is historic – one of the only global sector-specific climate targets. But critics note it came without binding interim benchmarks or a detailed roadmap. Climate analysts have called the plan “unsubstantiated,” cautioning that it leaves too much room for offsetting instead of real emission cuts.

The Cost of Climate Ambition

Decarbonizing aviation isn’t just a technical and logistical puzzle, it’s an enormous financial challenge. IATA estimates that reaching net-zero by 2050 will cost $4.7 trillion globally, or about $174 billion every year for the next 27 years. This staggering price tag covers everything from ramping up sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production, to investing in next-generation aircraft and operational overhauls, to purchasing carbon offsets for residual emissions.

Airline executives are grappling with how to foot this bill. The Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) projects that just supplying enough SAF to meet the 2050 goal could require $1.5 trillion in capital investment over 30 years, an amount equivalent to about 6% of global oil and gas investment per year. Forward-looking airlines are already signing multi-billion-dollar offtake agreements for future SAF supplies (over $45 billion in SAF purchase contracts as of early 2023). But financing the full climate transition may ultimately require a mix of higher ticket prices, government support, and redirection of airline profits. As per IATA, the bulk of emission cuts (perhaps 65%) will have to come from SAF uptake, with new aircraft technology, operational efficiencies, and carbon capture making up the rest. Each of those solutions demands massive upfront investment. This creates a dilemma: who will bear the cost of aviation’s climate ambition, shareholders, passengers, taxpayers, or some combination?

SAF Bottlenecks and Regional Divide

Sustainable Aviation Fuel, derived from renewable resources, is the keystone of aviation’s decarbonization strategy. In theory, SAF can cut a flight’s lifecycle emissions by up to 80% compared to conventional jet kerosene. In practice, however, SAF is in woefully short supply. It accounts for less than 1% of aviation fuel use today, just 0.3% in 2024, according to IATA data. Despite a remarkable 10-fold increase in output over the past few years, this still amounts to a drop in the jet fuel bucket.

One major hurdle is cost. SAF remains around three times more expensive than standard Jet-A fuel. Such a premium is prohibitive in a price-sensitive industry, dampening demand and discouraging airlines from using SAF at scale. Another hurdle is feedstock and production capacity: there are only a handful of commercial-scale SAF plants operating, and feedstocks like used cooking oil or agricultural waste are limited. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), all the existing and planned SAF projects in advanced stages worldwide would meet just 2–4% of total jet fuel demand by 2030. By the IEA’s estimates, SAF usage needs to reach over 10% of aviation fuel by 2030 to align with a net-zero pathway, a level that will require a significant ramp-up of investment and production capacity beyond current plans.

The challenge of scaling SAF is further complicated by a regional policy divide. In the United States, initial government support gave a burst of optimism, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act offered tax credits up to $1.75 per gallon of SAF and billions in grants and loan guarantees to spur production. The U.S. also launched a “SAF Grand Challenge” aiming for 3 billion gallons of SAF in 2030 and 100% of aviation fuel from SAF by 2050. However, by mid-2025 political winds shifted: a federal budget bill signed on July 4, 2025 rolled back many of those incentives, casting doubt on the reliability of U.S. support. This sudden policy reversal risks stalling projects that were counting on tax credits. Conversely, Europe is charging ahead with mandates. Under the new EU ReFuelEU Aviation regulation, any airline refueling at EU airports must uplift at least 2% SAF starting in 2025, rising to 6% by 2030 and 70% by 2050. The EU’s broader “Fit for 55” package adds complementary measures: tax breaks for SAF, binding blending requirements, and a tightening carbon price on aviation emissions under the EU Emissions Trading System.

Other regions are only beginning to follow. Japan has proposed a 10 percent SAF usage target by 2030. China’s aviation regulator has signaled interest in SAF to cut emissions intensity. Brazil has passed a law targeting 1 percent SAF by 2027 and 10 percent by 2037. These steps show a patchwork of efforts emerging globally. The risk is that uneven mandates create an imbalanced playing field: airlines operating under strict rules face higher costs than competitors elsewhere. A coordinated global approach is lacking, meaning the SAF bottleneck may persist longer in some regions than others.

Offsets and Credibility

Even with optimistic forecasts for new fuels and technologies, experts project aviation will still emit millions of tonnes of CO₂ annually in 2050 making carbon offsetting a tempting tool to close the gap to “net-zero.” Offsets (credits purchased to compensate for emissions via projects like tree planting or renewable energy) have been the industry’s go-to solution for the “last mile” of unabated emissions. Under ICAO’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), airlines must buy offsets to cover any CO₂ growth above 2019 levels on international routes. Many major carriers also offer voluntary offset programs to customers or have even declared “carbon-neutral” flying by offsetting all their emissions. In theory, this allows growth without climate impact. In practice, it has opened a credibility minefield.

The problem is that not all carbon credits are created equal, and until recently, there was no single global standard for what counts as a valid aviation offset. Airlines could shop in a fragmented voluntary carbon market rife with quality concerns. Some offset projects have been exposed as ineffective or outright fraudulent, for instance, a 2023 investigative analysis found that more than 90% of rainforest conservation offsets from a leading verifier were essentially “worthless” in terms of climate benefit (the forests were not actually under threat). Other credits may represent real carbon reductions but suffer from issues like impermanence (trees can burn down) or double counting between jurisdictions.

Regulators are beginning to respond. A UN-backed crediting mechanism is under development to standardize carbon markets. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has issued guidance on voluntary carbon trading and begun enforcement against fraud. The European Union has moved further, warning airlines against misleading offset marketing and preparing to ban labels like “carbon-neutral flights” from 2026 onward

Legal and Public Pressure

Aviation’s ESG promises are not unfolding in a vacuum. They are being closely watched and increasingly challenged by an array of stakeholders, from climate activists and consumers to lawyers and lawmakers. As the feasibility doubts grow, so does scrutiny of airlines’ actual behavior versus their green marketing. This has given rise to a new front of risk: greenwashing litigation and regulatory crackdowns. In the past two years, multiple airlines have found themselves in legal crosshairs over claims about sustainability. Class-action lawsuits have been filed in the United States accusing major carriers of misleading the public with assertions of “carbon-neutral” flying or exaggerated emissions offsets. In one high-profile case in California, Delta Air Lines was sued by customers for advertising itself as “the world’s first carbon-neutral airline” – a claim the lawsuit alleges was deceptive given problems with the offsets Delta relied on. United Airlines faced a similar suit (Zajac v. United) over claims related to its use of SAF and offsets in marketing; although one such case was dismissed, the signal was sent that airlines’ climate claims will be litigated line by line.

Regulators, too, are baring teeth. In Europe, as noted, authorities have formally put airlines on notice that vague or absolute green claims will not be tolerated. If carriers fail to adequately substantiate or adjust their marketing, they could face fines under consumer protection laws. U.S. state attorneys general have also begun probing airline advertising for potential consumer harm. All of this amounts to an unprecedented level of public accountability on aviation’s climate efforts. What might have passed as optimistic PR a few years ago can now trigger legal action or public shaming if it’s not backed by hard evidence.

The outcome is a new culture of accountability. What might have passed as optimistic PR a few years ago can now trigger legal action or public backlash if not backed by evidence. Airlines must build stronger internal governance to ensure ESG claims are credible. Empty pledges won’t fly for much longer.

Short-Term Profits vs Long-Term Action

Paradoxically, the aviation sector finds itself in 2025 enjoying a period of prosperity. After the pandemic slump, travel demand roared back, and many airlines returned to healthy profits. Fossil jet fuel prices have fallen from recent peaks, boosting carriers’ bottom lines. This short-term windfall offers a golden opportunity: industry experts have urged airlines to reinvest these profits into sustainability, essentially using today’s gains to fund tomorrow’s green transition. For example, extra cash could be channeled into purchasing more SAF (even at a premium), retrofitting fleets for better efficiency, or supporting innovative startups in electric or hydrogen aviation. The logic is straightforward – when times are good, prepare for the future. Those carriers that seize this moment to accelerate decarbonization will likely be more resilient when carbon costs inevitably rise.

Yet there is a countervailing force: the instinct to prioritize short-term competitiveness. Some airline executives worry that pouring money into green initiatives could leave them vulnerable if economic conditions sour again. Geopolitical tensions and economic uncertainties from trade disputes to war impacts and inflation cast a shadow. Airlines must keep ticket prices attractive and service reliable in the face of potential recessions or shocks. This leads to an uncomfortable trade-off: should an airline spend an extra $200 million on SAF and new tech now, or use it for shareholder dividends, debt reduction, or fleet expansion that yields immediate returns? The history of aviation is littered with bankruptcies triggered by external shocks, so caution runs deep in the executive mindset.

This dynamic creates what one might call the sustainability paradox for airlines: they are earning record revenues partly because they have not yet internalized carbon costs (today’s profits are inflated by using cheap fossil jet fuel), but to maintain profitability in a carbon-constrained future, they must invest those very profits into decarbonization potentially sacrificing some short-term returns. It’s a classic prisoner’s dilemma across the industry: if most airlines take the long view and invest in green measures, the playing field stays level and the sector as a whole becomes more sustainable. But if some major players delay action to cut costs now, they could undercut more proactive competitors on price, tempting others to slow down as well. This is why strong policy like fuel mandates or carbon pricing can actually help, by ensuring the “race to the bottom” on climate is avoided and everyone faces similar incentives to act.

Closing Call for Clarity and Accountability

Aviation’s journey toward sustainability is at a crossroads. The intentions have been made clear in boardrooms and press releases across the globe, net-zero, cleaner skies, a green revolution aloft. But as we have seen, the path to get there is anything but clear, marred by practical bottlenecks and conflicting signals. What the industry needs now is a heavy dose of clarity and accountability to cut through the haze.

Clarity must come in the form of transparent, realistic planning. This means establishing interim targets (for 2030, 2035, 2040) so progress can be measured and course-corrected, rather than a vague promise for 2050 with nothing in between. It means airlines clearly communicating how much of their emissions reductions will come from actual reductions (via SAF, new aircraft, efficiencies) versus offsets and why those offsets are credible. It also means governments coordinating on policy: a more unified global framework for sustainable aviation would reduce uncertainty and prevent the current patchwork from becoming a race to the bottom. If the European Union, United States, and major Asian economies could align incentives and standards for SAF and low-carbon aviation, it would provide a consistent flight plan for industry investment. Right now, divergence and policy U-turns (like the US rolling back SAF credits) only sow confusion and deter the very investments needed to solve the problem.

Accountability, on the other hand, is about ensuring words are matched by deeds. This is where continued pressure from regulators, investors, and civil society is essential. Greenwash must be called out and penalized; truly bold climate action must be recognized and rewarded. As per the Reuters analysis, carriers that lead on credible decarbonization will be better positioned to withstand the next wave of litigation, regulation, and reputational scrutiny. The converse is also true: those that indulge in half-measures or misleading narratives will eventually face a reckoning, whether in court, in the market, or both. The aviation industry has thrived in the past by mastering safety and earning public trust through rigorous standards and transparency (every airplane incident is investigated, lessons learned, standards improved). A similar rigor and honesty are now needed on the sustainability front.

Explore ESG Solutions on our marketplace - OneStop ESG Marketplace.

Keep abreast of the top ESG Events on OneStop ESG Events.

OneStop ESG Educate: Your go-to source for top ESG courses and training programs tailored to your needs.

Stay informed with the latest insights on OneStop ESG News.

Discover meaningful career opportunities on OneStop ESG Jobs.