The largest airline in Europe, Germany’s Lufthansa, just began charging its customers an Environmental Cost Surcharge to help cover the very expensive sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) the EU has mandated be used. The extra costs could be as high as 72 euros, or $77. For now.
European regulators implemented requirements that two percent of fuel used at EU airports be SAF by 2025, six percent by 2030, and 70 percent by 2050. Since SAF costs anywhere between 120 percent and 700 percent more than fossil-based jet fuels, the surcharge really is no surprise.
Regulators cannot expect companies to absorb these costs. It is practically impossible. Basic economics tells us that companies almost always pass along extra expenses to consumers. Lufthansa has even said they “will not be able to bear the successively increasing additional costs resulting from regulatory requirements in the coming years on its own.”
Perhaps this is all by design. Those pushing for a net-zero world actually want to see a drop in demand for anything that consumes fossil fuels. Aviation groups contend that EU and European state governments have mostly promoted the idea that “airlines don’t need to fly as much and that it’s ok—even desirable—for people to fly less.” And there is little pushback for fear of retribution from regulators or environmental groups.
Climate activists are of the same mentality. “Fly less. If you have to fly, buy offsets…..But try to fly less.”
In other words, just change your lifestyle to fit the climate agenda.
Aviation fuel surcharges are likely to come to U.S. shores eventually. We’re usually only a few steps behind Europe when it comes to drastic climate policy.
Currently the SAF portion of jet fuel in the U.S. is at 0.1 percent, or approximately 15.8 million gallons. The Biden administration launched the SAF Grand Challenge in 2021 with production goals of three billion gallons by 2030 and 35 billion gallons by 2050. You can count on travelers picking up part of that tab.
All the major airlines have loosely established programs where passengers can purchase third-party carbon offsets for their flights, which supposedly go toward projects that help preserve resources. Such projects are designed to reduce CO2 emissions somewhere in the world.
However, two months ago Alaska Airlines upped their game and is boasting about being the “first U.S. airline to link guest participation in sustainability to loyalty with an accelerated path to elite status.” When booking a flight, customers can purchase SAF credits of five, 10, or 20 percent of their emissions, all the while boosting their journey to obtaining elite-member status.
Buying offsets and credits may not be mandatory now, but it’s only a matter of time. Thirty-five billion gallons of SAF will not come cheap. The added expense may even just be reflected by an increase in ticket prices rather than itemized separately.
The craziest part? Some climate models suggest that even if we were to completely eliminate carbon emissions, the changes in temperature would be a negligible 0.137 degrees Celsius cooler by the year 2100. We continue to throw so much money and effort toward something that cannot be altered.
Often times taxes and surcharges are meant to discourage or change behavior. It is not a stretch to surmise that a number of elected officials want the general public to fly less and/or alter their travel. Environmental groups have already suggested it.
How long before Europeans revolt against these airline surcharges like they did with the most recent elections? Green parties and their policies suffered a “greenlash” last month as voters decided they’d had enough of skyrocketing electricity and overall energy costs. Many countries on that continent are facing deindustrialization.
What is happening in Europe should stay in Europe. We don’t need that here.
If paying surcharges on your airline ticket helps you sleep at night, then buy those carbon offsets. But please don’t impose burdensome regulations and costs on the rest of us. Let the market dictate options and let consumers decide for themselves how often they should travel and which mode of transportation best fits their needs and circumstances.
Kristen Walker is a policy analyst for the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the Institute, visit www.theamericanconsumer.org or follow us on Twitter @ConsumerPal.