Experts Warn U.S. Biofuels Push May Raise Aviation Emissions and Deforestation

Key Takeaways

• The US promotes crop-based biofuels for aviation despite risks of increased emissions and deforestation.
• SAF production in the US is projected to reach 3 billion gallons by 2030 and 35 billion by 2050.
• EU and UK exclude crop-based fuels; US tax credits incentivize them, possibly undermining climate goals.

The United States 🇺🇸 has positioned itself as a leader in the global push for sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs), aiming to reduce aviation emissions and address climate change. However, recent policy shifts and legislative proposals have raised concerns among environmental experts, who warn that the current approach—especially the reliance on crop-based biofuels—may actually increase aviation emissions and drive deforestation. This analysis examines the purpose and scope of the U.S. biofuels push for aviation, the methodology behind policy decisions, key findings from recent data, visual trends, and the broader implications for climate, agriculture, and sustainability.

Purpose and Scope

The primary goal of U.S. biofuels policy in aviation is to cut greenhouse gas emissions from air travel, which is a significant and growing source of pollution. The scope of this analysis includes:

• Reviewing the latest legislative and regulatory developments affecting SAFs
• Assessing the environmental impact of crop-based biofuels, including their effect on aviation emissions and deforestation
• Comparing U.S. policy with international approaches, particularly those of the European Union 🇪🇺 and United Kingdom 🇬🇧
• Presenting data on SAF production, consumption, and projections
• Evaluating alternative strategies for decarbonizing aviation
• Identifying policy limitations and areas for improvement

Methodology

This analysis draws on recent legislative texts, government guidance, industry data, and expert commentary. Key sources include:

• The “Big Beautiful Bill” and its provisions on indirect land-use change (ILUC)
• The Clean Fuels Production Credit (section 45Z) and related tax incentives
• Guidance from the Biden administration on SAF eligibility
• Data from the Clean Air Task Force (CATF), U.S. Department of Energy, and environmental organizations
• Statements and campaigns from airlines and industry groups
• Comparative policy reviews from the European Union 🇪🇺 and United Kingdom 🇬🇧

Data is presented using descriptive statistics, trend analysis, and visual descriptions to help readers understand the scale and impact of current policies.

Key Findings

1. Legislative and Regulatory Developments

• The “Big Beautiful Bill”: This bill proposes to exclude indirect land-use change (ILUC) from the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions for biofuels. ILUC refers to the emissions caused when forests or grasslands are converted to grow crops for fuel. By removing ILUC from consideration, the bill could make crop-based biofuels appear cleaner than they actually are.
• Clean Fuels Production Credit (Section 45Z): Effective January 2025, this tax credit rewards producers of transportation fuels, including SAFs, that meet certain emissions thresholds. The credit can reach up to $1.75 per gallon of SAF produced, creating a strong financial incentive for crop-based biofuels.
• Biden Administration Guidance: On April 30, 2025, new guidance was finalized that allows crop-based fuels like corn ethanol and soy biodiesel to qualify for SAF tax credits, despite scientific evidence that these fuels may not reduce net emissions.

2. Environmental Impact

• Aviation Emissions: In 2024, aviation accounted for about 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. domestic flights alone produced 150 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2019, nearly 3% of the country’s total emissions.
• Projected Growth: With air travel expected to double by 2050, aviation emissions could rise sharply unless effective mitigation strategies are adopted.
• Crop-Based Biofuels: Experts warn that using crops for biofuels can:
  • Release stored carbon by converting forests or grasslands to farmland
  • Reduce the planet’s natural ability to absorb carbon (carbon sinks)
  • Divert cropland from food production, raising food security concerns
  • Spur deforestation, especially if demand for biofuel crops increases

3. Data Presentation and Visual Trends

SAF Production and Consumption

• Current Share: Only 0.3% of global aviation fuel is classified as sustainable, with most coming from recycled cooking oil rather than crops.
• U.S. Growth:
  • 2021: 5 million gallons of SAF consumed
  • 2022: 15.84 million gallons
  • 2023: 24.5 million gallons
• Projections:
  • 2030: 3 billion gallons of SAF produced annually (a 130-fold increase from 2023)
  • 2050: 35 billion gallons per year
• Mandated SAF Share: U.S. policy requires SAF to make up 2% of aviation fuel in 2025, rising to 70% by 2050

Visual Description

Imagine a bar chart with years on the horizontal axis (2021, 2022, 2023, 2030, 2050) and gallons of SAF on the vertical axis. The bars start very low in 2021 and rise sharply by 2030, with a dramatic jump by 2050. This visual shows the ambitious scale-up planned for SAF production in the United States 🇺🇸.

4. International Comparisons

• European Union 🇪🇺: The EU has excluded crop-based fuels from its aviation SAF policies, citing their “devastating” land-use and deforestation impacts.
• United Kingdom 🇬🇧: The UK also favors waste-based and synthetic SAFs over crop-based options.
• United States 🇺🇸: In contrast, U.S. policy currently supports crop-based biofuels, despite environmental warnings.

5. Alternative Approaches

Environmental experts and some airlines are exploring other ways to reduce aviation emissions:

• Waste-Based SAFs: Fuels made from used cooking oil, agricultural waste, or municipal solid waste do not require new farmland and avoid deforestation.
  • Example: United Airlines’ campaign with Oscar the Grouch as “Chief Trash Officer” promotes SAF from waste.
• Synthetic Fuels: These are made from green hydrogen and captured carbon, using clean energy. They have the potential to be nearly carbon-neutral.
• Electrification: Electric planes are being developed for short flights, though battery technology limits their range.
• Carbon Removal: Technologies that capture and store carbon dioxide can offset emissions from jet fuel, but these are still expensive and not widely used.

6. Policy Limitations and Risks

• Indirect Land-Use Change (ILUC): Excluding ILUC from emissions calculations may underestimate the true climate impact of crop-based biofuels.
• Food Security: Using cropland for fuel can reduce food supplies and raise prices, especially in times of global food shortages.
• Scale and Feasibility: Even if global sustainable biofuel supply triples by 2030, it would only meet about 69% of aviation energy needs, dropping to 52% by 2050 (Clean Air Task Force).
• Short-Term Incentives: The three-year timeline for the section 45Z credit may not provide enough certainty for long-term investments in cleaner technologies.
• Patchwork Policies: State-level programs like California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard may create uneven incentives and competition among states.

Data Comparisons, Trends, and Patterns

• U.S. vs. EU/UK: The U.S. is moving toward greater reliance on crop-based biofuels, while the EU and UK are restricting or excluding them due to environmental risks.
• Production Growth: U.S. SAF production is set to increase rapidly, but most of this growth is expected to come from crop-based sources unless policies change.
• Emissions Impact: Without accounting for ILUC, reported emissions reductions may be overstated, potentially undermining climate goals.
• Deforestation Risk: Increased demand for biofuel crops could lead to more land clearing, especially in sensitive regions, contributing to biodiversity loss and higher carbon emissions.

Evidence-Based Conclusions

• Crop-Based Biofuels Are Not a Silver Bullet: While they offer a way to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, crop-based biofuels can increase aviation emissions and deforestation if not properly managed.
• Policy Gaps Remain: Excluding ILUC from emissions calculations and providing generous tax credits for crop-based SAFs may encourage practices that harm the environment.
• Alternative Fuels Hold Promise: Waste-based and synthetic SAFs, along with electrification and carbon removal, offer more sustainable paths for aviation decarbonization.
• International Lessons: The U.S. could benefit from adopting stricter safeguards similar to those in the EU and UK to avoid unintended environmental consequences.

Limitations

• Data Uncertainty: Projections for SAF production and emissions reductions depend on many variables, including technological advances, market demand, and policy changes.
• Policy Volatility: Legislative priorities can shift quickly, especially with changes in political leadership.
• Incomplete Accounting: Current U.S. policy may not fully capture the indirect effects of land-use change, leading to underestimation of true emissions.
• Global Coordination Needed: Aviation is an international industry, and inconsistent policies across countries can create loopholes and inefficiencies.

Practical Guidance and Next Steps

For policymakers, industry stakeholders, and concerned citizens, several actions can help ensure that the U.S. biofuels push for aviation aligns with climate and sustainability goals:

• Advocate for Science-Based Policy: Support the inclusion of ILUC and other indirect effects in emissions accounting for SAFs.
• Prioritize Waste-Based and Synthetic Fuels: Encourage investment in fuels that do not compete with food production or drive deforestation.
• Monitor State-Level Initiatives: Track programs like California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard for best practices and lessons.
• Engage in International Dialogue: Learn from the EU and UK experiences to improve U.S. policy design.
• Stay Informed: For the latest updates on U.S. biofuels policy and SAF developments, consult official resources such as the U.S. Department of Energy’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel page.

As reported by VisaVerge.com, the debate over U.S. biofuels policy for aviation is far from settled. While the push for SAFs is driven by urgent climate goals and strong agricultural interests, the choice of feedstock and the accuracy of emissions accounting will determine whether these efforts help or harm the environment. The stakes are high—not only for the aviation industry but also for global food security, forests, and the planet’s ability to fight climate change.

In summary, the U.S. biofuels push for aviation offers both opportunities and risks. By grounding policy decisions in science and prioritizing truly sustainable solutions, the United States 🇺🇸 can lead the way toward cleaner skies without sacrificing forests or food. Policymakers, industry leaders, and the public must work together to ensure that the transition to sustainable aviation fuels delivers real climate benefits—without unintended consequences like increased aviation emissions or deforestation.

Learn Today

Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs) → Fuels made to reduce aviation emissions, including biofuels from crops, waste, or synthetic sources.
Indirect Land-Use Change (ILUC) → Emissions caused when natural lands convert to crop production due to biofuel demand.
Clean Fuels Production Credit → A US tax incentive rewarding producers who meet emissions criteria for sustainable fuels.
Crop-Based Biofuels → Biofuels derived from food crops like corn or soy, used as energy sources.
Carbon Sink → Natural systems like forests that absorb and store more carbon dioxide than they emit.

This Article in a Nutshell

US policy pushes crop-based biofuels for aviation to cut emissions but risks deforestation and higher emissions, unlike EU and UK strategies favoring waste-based SAFs.
— By VisaVerge.com