Last Updated: March 22nd, 2025

SAF

A Dangerous Illusion Masquerading as a Climate Solution

Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is being promoted as a climate-friendly alternative to traditional jet fuel. The term itself sounds promising—who wouldn’t support making aviation more “sustainable”? But beneath the marketing gloss lies a troubling truth: SAF is, at best, a distraction, and at worst, a calculated maneuver by the aviation industry to delay real climate action.

At Sea-Tac Airport and across Washington State, SAF is being championed by the Port of Seattle, state lawmakers, the FAA, major airlines, and even Big Agriculture. They are working together to build a supply chain to support widespread use of SAF—from new processing plants to on-site fuel storage to state-sponsored farming initiatives.

We view this as the aviation industry’s version of “recycling”—not the act of reusing materials, but the public relations campaign promoted by the plastics industry in the 1970s to deflect regulatory threats. Just as “recycling” gave cover to continued plastic production and pollution, SAF is being used to give the appearance of environmental progress while allowing air travel to keep expanding—along with its emissions, noise, and health impacts.

What Is SAF, Really?

SAF refers to alternative fuels that can be used in aircraft instead of fossil-based kerosene jet fuel. These fuels are made from a range of feedstocks:

  • Used cooking oil and animal fats
  • Municipal solid waste
  • Forestry and agricultural residues
  • Specialized crops like camelina

SAF is typically blended with fossil fuel (usually up to 50%), and must meet chemical criteria to be compatible with existing aircraft and airport fuel systems.

In theory, SAF can reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80%. But that reduction is highly dependent on feedstock, processing method, and assumptions. In practice, these assumptions often fall apart under scrutiny.

Learn more:

The Carbon Neutrality Myth

To be truly “carbon neutral,” SAF would have to:

  1. Use genuinely waste-derived feedstocks (not crops grown on arable land).
  2. Be processed using clean, renewable energy.
  3. Avoid emissions from transportation, refining, and land use changes.
  4. Be blended at high concentrations, which isn’t currently permitted beyond 50%.

Even under ideal conditions, SAF does not eliminate emissions—it only shifts them across the lifecycle. And in many cases, the benefits are overstated or based on questionable accounting.

A major study published in Nature (2022) found that biofuels from crops like corn and soy may have greater emissions than fossil fuels, once land use changes are considered.
Study: “Environmental outcomes of biofuel policies”

The Airlines’ SAF Fantasy

Airlines around the world are betting their net-zero climate pledges on SAF. They claim that by switching fuels, they can avoid meaningful cuts to air travel or emissions.

Here are examples from three major airlines flying out of Sea-Tac:

The Problem:

Current global SAF production is less than 0.2% of total aviation fuel demand, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA).
IATA 2023 SAF Market Overview

Despite this, the industry expects SAF to account for 65% of their emissions reductions by 2050. That’s a bet on nonexistent fuel from nonexistent plants, backed by nonexistent supply chains.

How the Port, State, and FAA Are Pushing SAF

Washington State is emerging as a national hub for SAF—not because it’s working, but because powerful institutions are aligned behind it:

Port of Seattle

  • Promotes SAF as a core strategy in its Century Agenda and climate planning.
  • Partnered with Alaska and Delta on the “Sustainable Sky” initiative.
  • Commissioned a 2021 SAF infrastructure study, which recommended building dedicated SAF blending and storage systems at Sea-Tac.
  • SAF storage and distribution facilities are now explicitly included in the Sea-Tac Airport Master Plan (SAMP).

Port of Seattle SAF Infrastructure Study (PDF)
Sea-Tac SAMP Near-Term Projects – See Section on Fuel System Upgrades
Quote from SAMP: “Develop infrastructure upgrades to accommodate alternative fuels (including SAF), as part of fuel system modernization.”

Washington State Legislature & Agencies

  • Passed the Clean Fuel Standard (2021), which rewards low-carbon fuels like SAF.
  • Funded SAF research through the WSU Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels and Environment.
  • Promotes camelina and other oilseeds through the Dept. of Agriculture, raising concerns about land use and industrial farming expansion.

WA Dept. of Ecology: Clean Fuel Standard
WSU SAF Research

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

  • Actively funds SAF research, infrastructure, and policy development.
  • Supports programs like the Aviation Climate Action Plan and the Cleen Program, both of which center SAF as a climate solution.
  • Offers competitive grants for airports to install SAF infrastructure.

FAA Aviation Climate Action Plan
FAA CLEEN Program Overview

SAF Doesn’t Address What Really Matters

Here’s the truth: even if SAF were widely available tomorrow, it would not solve the real issues facing communities near airports like Sea-Tac.

SAF does not:

  • Make planes quieter.
  • Reduce ultrafine particle pollution (UFPs).
  • Alleviate the sleep disturbance, school disruption, or health risks faced by overflown communities.
  • Encourage people to fly less or the industry to shrink its footprint.

Instead, it gives the illusion of progress—a way for airlines and airport operators to claim climate leadership while continuing to expand.

Our Position: Reject the SAF Illusion

SeaTacNoise.Info oppose the SAF narrative. Not because we don’t want to reduce aviation’s impact, but because we do—and SAF is a roadblock, not a roadmap.

It is the new “recycling”—a slick, feel-good illusion, designed to let people and industries off the hook. It lets airlines sell “green” tickets. It lets the Port of Seattle brag about sustainability while adding gates and increasing flights. It lets politicians take credit for climate action while avoiding hard choices.

What We Need Instead:

  • Limits on airport expansion and air traffic growth
  • Investment in rail and clean ground transit
  • Noise reduction policies and health protections
  • Transparent community engagement and environmental justice

SAF will not bring these changes. Only community pressure, regulatory reform, and demand reduction will.