All companies like to declare themselves “sustainable” and make statements to that effect. The aviation industry has long since declared that it would generate zero emissions by 2050, and some companies such as Air New Zealand have anticipated that by 2030 they would reduce their emissions by 30%.
The year 2030 is already a little closer, and companies are clear that they are not going to meet their commitments. And I think that Air New Zealand has had the courage to be one of the first to recognize this, and declare that it will not meet its 2030 goals, and give its reasons.
This announcement, although painful for the company's image, serves as a necessary wake-up call for the entire aviation industry and forces us to question the viability of climate promises in a sector so dependent on fossil fuels.
Air New Zealand is not alone in its struggle to reconcile economic growth with environmental responsibility. Numerous companies in the aviation industry, and even outside it, have jumped on the sustainability bandwagon, promising to drastically reduce their emissions within timeframes that, in light of today's technological and economic realities, seem increasingly optimistic.
This tendency to set ambitious goals without concrete and viable plans has been dubbed “greenwashing” , , and Air New Zealand's confession could be the first symptom of an epidemic of unfulfilled climate promises.
The airline has two clear reasons for its failure to meet its 30% emissions reduction target by 2030. First, the lack of near-term availability of less polluting aircraft illustrates the gap between ambition and technological reality. While new technologies such as electric and hybrid propulsion are being developed, their large-scale application, especially on long-haul flights, is still a long way from being a commercially viable reality. Designing, testing and producing aircraft on the scale demanded by global air transport requires time, investment and infrastructure, factors that cannot be magically accelerated, even with the pressure of the climate crisis.
Second, the shortage of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), the most promising alternative to kerosene in the near term, presents another major obstacle. Despite its potential to significantly reduce emissions, SAF production is in its infancy, limited by factors such as production cost, availability of sustainable raw materials and lack of large-scale investment.
The shortage of SAF fuel is no surprise, as it has never been produced. It has only been produced in very small quantities for certain types of testing. And it will continue to be so for a long time.
This scenario raises uncomfortable questions about the viability of the aeronautical industry's most ambitious goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050. If the difficulty of meeting less ambitious targets for 2030 is already recognised in 2024, how is carbon neutrality to be achieved in such a short period of time? The answer, as is often the case in these cases, is complex and requires a multidimensional approach.
First, a radical change in investment and technological innovation is needed. Governments and companies must work together to promote the development of new propulsion technologies, such as green hydrogen or electrification, and accelerate the large-scale production of SAF. This implies not only allocating more economic resources, but also creating incentives and regulatory frameworks that favour the adoption of these alternatives.
Secondly, the current dependence on air transport must be reconsidered. While it is true that aviation plays a crucial role in the global economy and human connectivity, it is necessary to promote more sustainable alternatives for short and medium distance travel, such as the train. Especially for short plane trips of less than 2 hours.
Finally, a cultural change is required that promotes environmental awareness and individual responsibility in terms of travel. This implies rethinking the culture of "low cost" and excessive consumption of flights, choosing to travel less and better, prioritizing nearby destinations and more sustainable means of transport, which do exist.
Since 2050 is still quite far away, the aeronautical world does not say anything about meeting or not meeting its zero emissions objectives, although everyone is very clear that they will not meet them. Because there is no real alternative to kerosene with the quantities of fuel needed, especially for large aircraft.
Air New Zealand's confession, while seemingly negative, is courageous and can have a positive impact if it serves as a catalyst for action. Rather than falling into easy criticism or pessimism, we need to take advantage of this wake-up call to demand from the industry, governments and ourselves a real and effective commitment to sustainability. The future of aviation, and of the planet, depends on our ability to act with determination and responsibility.
We will do it ? Allow me to doubt it.
EN 
ES