It’s not easy flying green
We read in the March issue of AFR Magazine an article by Jenny Wiggins entitled, “How to fly green without the carbon offset ‘accounting trick’1.”
It sounds easy right? Flying has never felt greener—just tick the carbon offset box at checkout and fly guilt-free to any exotic place. But the article asks are those offsets really making a dent in aviation’s ballooning emissions, or are they as we feel just a feel-good gimmick? With airlines scrambling to meet their 2050 net-zero pledges, the truth is that as the article says, the industry is still one of the fastest-growing sources of pollution, and offset schemes might not be the silver bullet they claim to be.
The Problem with Carbon Offsets
The article then elaborates that the idea behind carbon offsets is simple: you pay a little extra when booking your flight, and in return, a project somewhere in the world—often tree planting—will supposedly absorb the equivalent amount of carbon your journey emits. Sounds good in theory. But in practice? A lot murkier.
For starters, planting trees takes time. A newly planted forest won’t sequester significant amounts of carbon for decades, while the emissions from your flight enter the atmosphere immediately. Worse, not all offset projects are created equal. Some don’t materialise, others are poorly maintained, and a few simply shift emissions elsewhere rather than reducing them. No wonder as the article says that organisations like The Australia Institute call carbon offsets an “accounting trick.”
The Hard Numbers on Aviation Emissions
The article says that aviation is responsible for nearly 9% of global emissions from tourism, with carbon output from flights increasing 3.5% per year between 2009 and 2019. International flights alone could see emissions double or quadruple by 2050. Given that a single hectare of trees can offset just 150 tonnes of carbon dioxide, and airlines produce more than 800 million tonnes annually, the maths simply doesn’t add up—over five million hectares of trees would need to be planted every year just to keep up.
Some airlines have fronted up with the reality, like Air New Zealand, have admitted they won’t meet their targets. Others quoted in the article, including Qantas, are under legal scrutiny for potentially misleading sustainability claims. Meanwhile, the European Commission is cracking down on greenwashing, arguing that offset schemes may give passengers a false sense of sustainability.
How Can Travellers Really Reduce Their Carbon Footprint?
Most passengers pick flights based on price, timing, and convenience, but emissions calculators like those from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and Google Flights can help identify lower-impact options. The aircraft type matters too. The article states that a return business class flight from Sydney to Paris emits anywhere from 4415kg (Airbus A350) to 5940kg (Airbus A380) of carbon dioxide, with older aircraft generally being less fuel-efficient. It goes on to mention that newer fleets, like Turkey’s Pegasus Airlines with an average fleet age of 4.5 years, perform better than those with ageing planes—Qantas’ fleet, for example, averages 14.6 years.
But even flying the newest aircraft and ticking the offset box won’t achieve the aviation industry’s lofty climate goals. Large electric planes remain commercially unfeasible due to battery weight. The article p[oints to the real game-changer? Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).
The Role of Sustainable Aviation Fuel
SAF, produced from sources like cooking oil and forestry waste if done correctly, can slash aviation emissions by up to 80%. The catch? Cost and availability. SAF is still several times the price of traditional jet fuel and accounted for just 0.3% of aviation fuel used globally in 2024. Scaling up production is crucial, but airlines are hesitant to commit due to already high fuel costs. The European Union is forcing the issue, mandating that 2% of aviation fuel at its airports come from sustainable sources by 2025.
Consultancy firm KPMG suggests passengers might be willing to pay a premium if they know airlines are transitioning to SAF. The articles states that in Australia, government-backed projects, such as a planned ethanol-to-SAF facility in Townsville, aim to bring costs down. The plant, supported by federal and Queensland funding, claims it could reduce net domestic aviation emissions by 70% per litre compared to fossil fuels.
The Future of Green Flying
Other radical ideas quoted in the article include imposing a “frequent flyer levy,” as proposed by climate group Stay Grounded. The concept? Your first return flight each year is levy-free, but a second would cost €50, a third €100, and so on. This would make air travel—especially multiple long-haul flights—a more considered choice, even in economy class.
The Bottom Line
Carbon offsets offer an easy out, but they don’t meaningfully tackle aviation’s emissions problem. Real solutions lie in airline fleet efficiency, alternative fuels, and policy changes that push the industry away from fossil fuels. If you’re investing in carbon reduction, make sure your money is going to genuine, long-term solutions—not just a box-ticking exercise that lets airlines off the hook. Because when it comes to the environment, the fine print always matters.
Resources
Jenny Wiggins, “How to fly green without the carbon offset ‘accounting trick’” The Australian Financial Review Magazine, February 28, 2025, https://www.afr.com/life-and-luxury/travel/how-to-fly-green-without-falling-into-the-greenwashing-trap-20241015-p5kilq
Important Information
EnviroInvest Pty Ltd ACN 685 107 957 (“EnviroInvest”) is an Authorised Representative of Daylight Financial Group Pty Ltd ACN 633 984 773 (“DFGPL”) which is the holder of an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFS Licence No. 521404).
Information in this commentary is current as at date prepared unless otherwise stated. However, please bear in mind that investments can go up or down in value, and that past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance. For more Important Information please refer to the Disclaimer section of this website.
This communication may contain general financial product advice. It has been prepared without taking into account your personal circumstances, and you should therefore consider its appropriateness in light of your objectives, financial circumstances and needs before acting on it.
If our advice relates to the acquisition or possible acquisition of a particular financial product, you should obtain a copy of and consider the Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) before making any decision.