According to an announcement from the Ministry of Defence, the Royal Air Force (RAF) has begun using sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) in routine operations for the first time.
This aims to reduce carbon emissions and enhance energy security.
Aircraft, including Typhoon fighters and Poseidon submarine hunters based at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland, are now operating using a blend of conventional and sustainable aviation fuels.
Earlier this year, the RAF received four million litres of blended SAF through a contract with World Fuel Services, with an additional five million litres expected in the coming months.
RAF Lossiemouth, one of the UK’s busiest air stations, is home to Typhoon aircraft, which are on standby 24/7 as part of the UK’s Quick Reaction Alert force.
“The pioneering use of sustainable fuels on routine operations shows how we’re delivering on our first priority to keep Britain secure without compromise, while addressing our carbon footprint,” said Defence Minister Lord Vernon Coaker in the announcement.
Sustainable aviation fuel can be derived from various sources, including hydrogenated fats and oils, wood waste, alcohols, sugars, household waste, biomass, and algae. The Ministry of Defence updated aviation fuel standards in 2020 to allow up to 50% of sustainable sources in fuel mixes for defence aircraft.
The use of SAF can reduce aircraft carbon emissions by up to 70%, contributing significantly to the RAF’s goal of becoming net zero by 2040.
Air Vice-Marshal Shaun Harris, Director Support, commented on the initiative: “We remain at the forefront of this important work with industry partners, and introducing sustainable aviation fuel to one of our busiest stations demonstrates our commitment, bringing defence and industry together to reduce our carbon footprint.”
RAF Lossiemouth’s Station Commander, Group Captain Sarah Brewin, also highlighted the importance of this development: “The routine use of sustainable aviation fuel represents an important milestone in the RAF’s journey towards helping mitigate against climate change. By integrating sustainable practices into our operations, we are not only enhancing our ability to protect the nation and deliver excellence on operations, but also contributing to a more sustainable future for generations to come.”
The RAF has been exploring alternative fuel sources since the 2020 update to fuel standards. Previous milestones include the world’s first flight of a microlight aircraft powered by synthetic fuel created from air and water in 2021, and the successful trial of 100% sustainable aviation fuel on an RAF Voyager in November 2022.
The RAF also achieved the first SAF blend air-to-air refuelling of a Typhoon and C-130 Hercules aircraft in 2023.
I wonder what the cost is relative to conventional fuel.
At least twice as expensive and probably supplied by the ChiComs. Yet another example of inverted priorities.
Nuts.
Our Lorries were a nightmare on a green fuel, with constant fuel system breakdowns, this seems an unnecessary risk
Did your lorries use FAME, Fatty Acid Methyl Ester? Derived from Raps oil? This is entirely different from SAF.
I am sure you are correct. However, this seems to me to be another cog in a wheel that doesn’t need it
I soooo don’t care!
I love how if you give this story a green/sustainability angle the comments are all ‘this is stupid’, ‘don’t care’ etc. Make it a story about energy security for the armed forces, reducing reliance on oil shipped from potential war zones, improving our strategic resilience so that in a conflict we do actually have fuel to use and you would probably get a different comment. Same with RAF bases using solar panels etc this makes strategic sense. We need to move away from oil and gas not just for green reasons but for strategic security reasons.
Paul…this is not what this is about. This is not what it’s going to deliver. It’s not going to deliver energy security for the RAF let alone the country. This is wasting scarce resource virtue signalling to the wrong sort of people who don’t even care about defence. This is about getting a badge that’s all it is. It’s trivial.
Because you say so? How is sourcing fuel from domestic waste rather than shipping it from across the globe anything other than beneficial to strategic security? The country that creates an armed forces that uses green renewable and sustainable energy will have a massive strategic advantage. Reduced logistics chains, shorter supply routes, less need to defend those things, easier to sustain long distance deployment. It’s win win.
Sorry but there is an absolutely gigantic mountain to climb before the UK gets even remotely self sufficient using “sustainable fuel”.
Oh of course, utterly agree but every journey needs a first step. You get no where doing nothing.
We did that with Diesel, then Gas, then Hybrids now Electric, Hydrogen on the cards.
E10 causing problems too.
Oil is sustainable fuel over any timescale that matters, it beggars belief that so many otherwise intelligent people fall for the “save the planet” crap!
Oil is finite, expensive, not particularly efficient, toxic, uses overly complex engines, needs to be dug, transported, refined, transported again, stored very carefully. It is very much not sustainable at all. It is a limited resource that is increasingly expensive to get hold of. I think you need to check your understanding of the word ‘sustainable’.
As for your opposition to ‘saving the planet’. I look forward to your PhD on why this is nonsense….but regardless green actually makes far more economic sense and improves energy and strategic security. So if green issues offend your manliness or your SUV rights or whatever focus on the money.
I know exactly how the UN defines sustainable Paul, I wonder if you know. Right up until today new sources are being discovered faster than we can use them and fracking is cheap not expensive. If our stupid bloody politicians chose to exploit the Bowland shale instead of selling it off to China to line their own pockets we would be hugely oil rich!
The UN definition! Bingo! Go on then how does the UN define it? I assume then that you embrace the the 17 Goals then?
I do not know about any 17 goals but their definition is that if a resource would/might/could be of use to future generations then we should conserve it. We have no idea what future generations will be using and so the whole idea is ludicrous.
I have no paper qualifications Paul but I do have a letter from MENSA which tells me that my IQ is 149.
The 17 goals are the definition of sustainability according to the UN. The tag line to them is “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Which is diplomat for don’t screw the planet up for the kids, but don’t kill grandma now either. The 17 goals are the broader definition of how to achieve that – they clearly state ending oil dependency btw.
Well done on your IQ test.
The UN is the source of all the problems. Another unelected bunch telling us how to live our lives (THEIR way).
Using the vast amounts of oil available does zero harm to the planet.
So you’re not a fan of the fruits of the allied victory in 1945 or the Atlantic Charter of 1941, Churchill was wrong then?
Burning oil does no harm? Let’s forget climate change for a moment…So the Exxon Valdiz was what? High rates of asthma related deaths in cities and near busy roads are…? The Deepwater Horizon was just a…? Acid rain is made from unicorn tears I suppose? Nope oil is clearly a super safe, healthy chemical that isn’t remotely hazardous to humans and its COSHH rating is ‘elf n safety gone mad!
NO, I will not forget climate change because that is the reason given for the need to use green renewable and sustainable energy hence the article in the UKDJ. so answer my question please?
No. There is as I said in the other reply zero point arguing. Yours is a belief position from misunderstanding and lack of good science education which is probably not your fault. But unless you want to have an evidence based civil conversation there really is no point, you are arguing against the entirety of science and 300 years of the enlightenment, to continue this further is a worthless endeavour. Have a lovely day and hope the sun is shining where you are.
Argue with this guy Paul:
John Raymond Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) … He is the distinguished professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). [1]
Paul, sorry mate, I think you need to move to level 2 thinking. This is defence of the realm, not play nice time.
In addition, I would honestly and respectfully suggest you review your thoughts on what is green so called. Try reading green tyranny by Rupert Darwall – it’s a good one to get you started.
Oh I wondered when his name would come up. It used to be James Dellingpole twenty years ago but I guess times move on. Let’s see, should I as a professional scientist read the data, read the journals and papers, look back at my own studies from 25 years ago, use the knowledge in my own field of planetary science to actually understand climate change OR should I read the book of a political analyst who is part of a climate change denial organisation in the US….hmmmmm
Nobody wants climate change to be real, I’m afraid as the famous Feynman quote says while people are entitled to their opinions and beliefs they are not entitled to their own facts. It is what it is and RD is no different to the emails I get from people claiming to have proved Einstein wrong. He is a hilarious know nothing blowhard funded by dodgy people. No thanks.
YOU are no scientist Paul unless they lowered the levels a great deal to get you in.
Ah and on to the personal attacks. Have yourself a great day.
Colin Brooks (@guest_846651)
3 seconds ago
Reply to Paul
I do not know about any 17 goals but their definition is that if a resource would/might/could be of use to future generations then we should conserve it. We have no idea what future generations will be using and so the whole idea is ludicrous.
I have no paper qualifications Paul but I do have a letter from MENSA which tells me that my IQ is 149.
You can’t move away from hydrocarbons. Too much depends on them from food to plastics to medicines and everything else in between. It isn’t just a question of fuel. They would be still need to be extracted and refined. If anything burning them is a waste of very good source material.
If you want to be without oil be the change you want to see and get rid of everything touched by oil out of your life. You can’t do it.
I deal with numbers. And I am not going to get too excited at a gas that makes up .04% of the atmosphere killing us due to heat. There is something called the Second Law of Thermodynamics you might try to read up about. Never mind all plant life dies at .015%.
And that is the simple stuff without looking at how photons heat molecules or Maxwell-Boltzmann.
I am sorry but all your posts are just headline mainstream media guff. You may well think others are stupid. I think you are ill informed and innumerate.
Also you need to spend sometime around scientists. My time exposed to campus politics leads me to believe that scientists are not paragons of virtue. They may be your high priests of truth but they certainly aren’t mine.
I notice every time a site runs a climate change story somebody likes you pops up. Arrogant and smarmy like they are some holly mission and on beyond question when it is quite apparent they know little beyond what the BBC has told them.
Hello Stephanie, I’m sorry you have had such a bad experience of science and scientists. All the ones I’ve known (and I am one btw physicist (astro variety) so yes i know the 2nd law etc) are full of self doubt, question everything and never see themselves as paragons of anything (except introverted-ness) and certainly not priests of truth, science is just a method and not a religion, the only thing that matters is the data. It isn’t surprising that my views align with the BBC, they employ actual scientists to fact check and advise. Smarmy? I don’t know, maybe just doesn’t align with your personal opinion.
I would just ask you about that 0.04%. That amount of CO2 stops the Earth being a snow ball planet, raises the temperature of the atmosphere to habitability. So that suggests it takes very little input to make a huge difference. It is in fact an argument in favour of climate science. But you probably think that’s smarmy and arrogant 🙂
The Carbon Cycle btw was first worked out in the late 18th century by Joseph Priestley (also discovered oxygen) and the role of CO2 and how adding it would heat the atmosphere was discovered by Eunice Newton Foote (one of Americas first female scientists) in the 1850s. None of this is new, none of it is a modern scientific conspiracy by ‘big green’. It’s science that is a couple of centuries old.
AS an astrophysicist you will know all about the tests done in the cloud chamber of the Hadron Collider which proved that cosmic rays did seed clouds which obviously affects our climate and has sod all to do with CO2?
Well the CLOUD experiment is not LHC, it’s PS. Belongs to CERN yes, who by the way you must hate! An unelected International body who utterly supports the science of climate change!
CLOUD showed that biogenic particles interact with cosmic rays at low altitudes to seed clouds. Guess which molecule is a one of the biogenic ones…
CO2 heats the atmosphere. Let’s forget climate change. CO2 was shown to be the major source of atmospheric heating in the 1850s by Eunice Newton Foote. Without CO2 doing that Earth is a snowball. Frozen up and uninhabitable. We need a greenhouse effect, it’s what keeps us alive. So if you think that CO2 does nothing you are rejecting not climate change but the basic chemistry of how Earth’s atmosphere works that was established over 170 years ago. I’m sorry but you are just wrong to a level that would make a year 11 blush.
CLOUD did not prove that BIOGENIC particles interacted with cosmic rays, it proved that they interacted with ANY molecules and so seeded clouds which as I said before are a big factor in our climate. CO2 DOES NOT cause our atmosphere to heat up atmospheric CO2 increases are caused by it heating up. I dont suppose that astro physicists are interested in paleontology but a million years of ice cores showed that CO2 always rose after warming NOT the other way round.
Really no point to this. You are just wrong. Absolutely, definitively wrong. You are someone convinced black is white, literally arguing that chemistry has been mistaken for two centuries. No point arguing here. You don’t know what you are talking about, your science education is poor and I’m sorry about that, science education in the UK is unfortunately quite poor and ignorance widespread. You would do well to read Carl Sagans Demon Haunted world. We could sit in a lab and run Eunice Newtons 170 year old co2 experiments and my guess is you would reject the answer as it conflicts with your beliefs. Have yourself a great day but I’m drawing this to a close.
Morning Paul Hill, interesting series of comments you have made here on this specific subject, out of curiosity i was just looking at some previous stuff to see what brings an Astro Physicist to the forum, it seems like you have a wide and varied knowledge of all things Military, why not stick around and join the happy bunch of regulars ?
Morning, I’m ex-TA (Light Inf) and my first degree is in War Studies and my father engineered missiles. Today I’m an aging astronomer who is still a history geek and keeps one eye on the world of defence. Actually been lurking around this place since it started.
Hi Paul. People tend to slag off things they don’t understand, or don’t sound very glamorous. Welcome to the site.
He was first on here 5 years ago, bit late for the welcome ! 😀
Yeah, in fact I started reading UKDJ back when it started which I think is even further back! I’m a lurker and occasional poster when it’s a slow day!
I have to say I often read the comments on the interesting articles, they never disappoint!
Based on the same idiotic idea that allows Drax to emit more CO2 than if it burnt coal but still count as green. No reduction at the point of combustion, just a claimed ” lifecycle ” reduction by offsetting estimated CO2 absorption by the ingredients in their previous form.
You could just as well argue that because the trees that became coal lived for decades absorbing CO2, burning coal is green.
OK carbon cycle…coal is locked away carbon. It has been removed from the carbon cycle millions of years ago. It has not been part of the atmosphere for a very long time. Burning it puts it back as adds to the total amount in the air. Burning wood is using carbon that is in the carbon cycle in the present it isn’t additional carbon it is essentially a balanced system in the same way newly dead plants release the carbon they absorbed in their life time. Coal and oil are in no way the same. Burning a forest down doesn’t actually add to the carbon in the system, Burning any amount of coal or oil adds to the system.
Go tell that to China.
I think you’ll find the scientific community does! But the argument ‘but China doesn’t’ is firstly a bit playground ‘but he did it too miss!’ And secondly is wrong because one of the biggest investor in green energy is China, they fully understand the strategic advantages it conveys…they end at war with the US they potentially lose most of their oil supply
They have over 3000 Coal powered power stations that produce something like 56% of the Worlds electricity produced by burning Coal.
How the hell am I wrong ?
You’re not! But it is possible to do that and recognise that China is the biggest investor in green energy too (it’s where all our solar panels come from!) China is both. A country 23 times bigger than the UK has used coal to power its growth from an agrarian society EXACTLY how we did in the 18th/19th century. But like us they are changing, partly for the planet and partly for economic and strategic reasons.
They may well be the biggest investor in green energy but that shouldn’t mask the fact that they are also the worlds largest producer of energy (by far) using coal.
In 1850 the population of UK was @ 21 million, China has @ 1.4 billion.
Yep does my head in when people state China is ‘going green’ because they manufacture solar panels completely ignoring their copious use of coal power with the trite ‘well we did it’ excuses.
Yup, mine too.
The ignorance is staggering.
Not what I was saying. China is an awful polluter. But they are also overtaking us in green tech. Those two ideas are not incompatible and what is happening is that China is going to dominate the next strategic power sources while we sit here moaning that they pollute more so what difference do we make. No go all in green, become industry leaders and make sure we don’t become reliant on others for essential industries.
Who’s sitting here moaning ? I’m certainly not, I see the whole picture rather more clearly and like to add some realistic comments about just how polluting China actually is whilst the rest of us blindly buy everything they produce.
Just Stop Oil Protesters all need to get on a sail boat and head to Beijing and protest there rather than disrupt our little part of the World.
They can’t. They’ve been put in prison longer than racist rioters for the audacity of pointing out reality. Such is the crazy mixed up world we live in.
And yet entities get carbon credits for planting trees. The greater the gross tonnage of timber in the system the less carbon in the atmosphere. The ‘sustainable’ fuels release the same volume of carbon for each unit of energy produced. The fuel is deemed ‘sustainable’ as it uses materials that would otherwise be dumped.
Yes it is an area of green washing that annoys climate scientists. Carbon footprint was an idea invented by BP to push the onus for change onto the public, and with that comes ideas like carbon credit. It’s mostly nonsense.
We should absolutely plant more trees, they help, but mostly it improves the living environment, prevents soil erosion and flooding etc.
Makes you wonder why so many green areas with Trees are getting obliterated all over the country to make way for more housing and Factories with Solar Panels on their rooves.🙄
Humans. Simultaneously the most incredible species and the worst.
Should that be Roofs ?..or is that opening up another can of worms 🤔
Rooves is the traditional spelling.
Amen
Sort of Paul, the issue with this argument is that the length of the carbon cycle in these trees, means that the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere now, is additive to the CO2 already there. So, if the science is right, we are going to increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere until there is a tipping point where the trees grow big enough to capture the equivalent amount (30 years?)
This is at a time where we think there is a climate tipping point nearing and the world is STILL increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Wood burning is then making the process worse, even if eventually it is recaptured.
So really, we’d actually be better off burning coal now whilst growing the trees you are going to need to burn in the future, because that would release less carbon….
Spot on.
Sort of. The better thing to do is dump coal, build wind, solar, tide and nuclear in a large scale apollo scale programme while planting billions of trees, algae farms and switching as many vehicles(of all types) to electric and hydrogen. While also reducing the total number of vehicles and increasing local resilience.
I wasn’t actually advocating burning coal…. just not burning wood. And I think Solar panels are the Devil’s work. Unsustainable product, very difficult to recycle and currently covering vast swathes of agricultural land…
I’d not entirely disagree with that. But it’s degrees of bad. Solar panels are an awful lot better than any carbon based power, by orders of magnitude. And as for agricultural land. It’s a mixed thing, they are better than a field of cows or a monoculture as a solar field creates wildlife habitat but is it better than well managed crop farming?…difficult.
Nope. If, instead of using it as wood, you grind up felled timber into pellets, ship them by diesel powered ships and lorries to a power station that burns them, you increase CO2 emissions.
Burning wood not only wastes a resource that has other uses, it adds to CO2 now, generating far more than oil or gas at the point of combustion.
See the article from 25/02/2022 in the Guardian for a full explanation of the facts.
Oh I agree. But coal is not the answer.
If that is the cycle definition (and BTW I’m not saying it isn’t) then that’s ridiculous. Just because something is ‘out of the cycle’ for an ‘extended’ amount of time doesnt imean that should be considered any different to something that has been trapped for a relatively short amount of time.
Surely its just about the amount of carbon that’s being released nit when it was trapped.
What about technologies to trap carbon? If utilised does that mean we can burn the source without consideration as its still not being released into the cycle ?
We can burn trees because their carbon has been trapped for a.short time?
Elton John can fly around the world as long as he plants a tree?
How long does it take that tree to trap the carbon he’s used & what happens when they burn that tree…Will they be able to ask for his air miles back (but not his hair miles).
In my opinion there’s an awful lot of smoke (no pun intended) and mirrors spouted when trying to justify certain ‘green ‘ actions.
Still I suppose it enables the pious to sleep at night.
Lot to unpick. OK it makes a difference because coal was laid down 300 million years ago and the atmosphere was different. The forests that were buried took a lot of carbon that vanished from the system over 100 million years before the dinosaurs appeared. That’s different from the short term ‘trapping’ in living things as there is a constant cycle of plants and animals growing, dying and rotting. Where as coal was plants that were buried and essentially never rotted so the carbon was locked away.
Yes technically burning trees is “ok” as such because the carbon was already in the cycle but it is complex. There is a lot of guff about offsetting and carbon footprints. The idea of the carbon footprint was created by BP so isn’t a climate science idea, actually comes from the oil industry- it pushes the onus to change onto the public rather than the oil industry.
As ever no easy answers, it’s all complex and the whole thing will take massive change and global initiatives. Planting a tree to offset a skiing holiday is just nonsense that allows the middle classes to sleep at night.
Won’t matter when the fighting starts.
It will if we are cut off from our oil supply (1973 cough cough). Then the RAF sits on the ground doing nothing…but oh look sustainable greener domestic energy comes to the rescue
Meanwhile, China has over 3000 operating coal fired power stations generating some 56% of the entire Worlds electricity that is produced from coal.
In addition,they are currently building 95% of the Worlds new Coal fired stations.
But at least the UK is trying.
If it works – and it clearly does as it’s being used operationally – then can someone explain why this is a bad thing? There are always the same reactions to this story, most of which have no substance beyond “nuts” or “idc lol” and – honestly – are these positions based on something solid or are they just knee jerks against a perceived woke/EDI/jso agenda?
I cannot see why diversifying potential fuel sources for the RAF is a bad thing. When climate change really bites – and it will, that can’t be stopped – I’d rather our forces have an alternative that doesn’t rely on buying in something which could be stopped.
It’s not a bad thing, not sure I’ve read anyone say that, for me though it’s a matter of perspectives and comparisons.and knowing how much of a part the UK plays in the Global emissions stakes.
I see people keep arguing that we only produce 1% of the world’s emissions. But every 1% counts.
If we’re 1%, and France, Germany, Italy, Spain for example are also 1% and we all cut our emissions to net-zero, then that’s a 5% drop in global emissions. It’s a start.
But Stan is right; there’s nothing bad about diversifying our fuel sources. It makes us less dependent on other countries or on ensuring certain trade routes are kept clear.
We all know that, eventually, oil is on the way out. It’ll be decades at least, but we might as well get ahead of the curve in terms of being able to keep our aircraft flying. I’d rather we do this now and perfect it rather than sit on our backsides now and scrabble out the gates years from now when everyone else is trying to do the same thing.
As much as I see what you are trying to say, It all comes down to numbers, facts and statistical comparisons. EG.
China has 3000 plus coal fired power stations, we have 2, that’s nowhere remotely near 1%.
China has 1.4.000,000,000 People. We have 68.000,000.
China has 320,000,000 cars, we have 40,000.000.
China may well be producing Solar Panels, Wind turbines and Green energy products that the rest of the World are buying but the vast majority of the energy they use to produce these is produced by burning Coal.
Personally I choose not to act like a sheep and believe all the nonsense that we are being fed.
No offence but I’d say you’re acting exactly like a sheep. Just keep burning fossil fuels, I’m sure nothing bad will happen, I’m sure that almost every scientist on the planet is wrong.
Also, you’re only focused on coal fired power stations, there, not on everything else that creates emissions. And you miss the point: if all the smaller (relative to the likes of China and the US) do their part then global emissions will still drop, and it all helps.
40 million cars is still a large number. If they’re not producing emissions then that’s still a lot of crap not being dumped into the air.
There’s no logic at all in thinking that just because the likes of China don’t do it, then neither should we. For starters, China’s never really been a global leader in anything. They just copy Western tech. They’ll wait for the West to do it and then steal and copy the technology, saving money on R&D.
If we wait for them to do it first then we’re basically waiting for the heat death of the universe.
Well I’m disappointed with that reply really, I thought you might just have understood the comparisons and engaged in a civil discussion. I never mentioned that we shouldn’t try to go green, infact I personally have nearly all my energy produced by Solar and a bit of wind, I also have two EV’s.
I merely gave the food for thought that seems to never ever appear in any discussions about the UK’s contributions and you focussed on just one thing that I chose to offer as an example of your 1% claim.
You do know what 1% of 3000 is ? Can you even imagine where 3000 Coal powered stations would be in the UK ?
Guess I was hoping for too much !
Why do all Climate activists appear so angry and deaf when it comes to the UK’s bit part in all the Worlds issues ?
Apologies if I got a bit wound up by the sheep comment. I see a lot of insults by climate change deniers, so it was a knee-jerk reaction, and for that I apologise.
Still, my point stands. All the science shows it’s happening and can’t be shied away from or ignored. And as I said, we can’t wait for the likes of China to take the lead on it. They are not leaders.
You do seem very fixated on just coal-fired power stations, though. When I said the UK is about 1% of emissions, that’s the argument I often hear, but it’s all emissions, not just coal stations. That includes emissions from cars, flights, manufacturing etc, as well as energy production.
The EU and UK combined is about 9% of global emissions. Yes, it’s a drop in the ocean but that’s still a 9% reduction which is over 3 billion tonnes of CO2. It’s a significant amount and would have a positive impact still.
China should take the lead, yes, but as I said, they never take the lead on anything. We shouldn’t wait for them to take the lead on this – or anything else, to be honest.
Perhaps because climate activists are quite passionate about the fact that we’re destroying the only planet we have, and run into people who deny it, belittle people trying to make a difference, don’t care or assume that we shouldn’t be doing our part just because others aren’t doing it either.
And I’m not some Greta Thunberg, either. I think she’s a joke.
I mentioned coal as that was what this discussion seemed to be about, I merely highlighted the extreme number being used in China, I then gave another example about Cars and another one about population size.
For some reason people never actually mention any of that whilst complaining or protesting and I find it incredible that you seem to dismiss the largest polluter in your eagerness to put down the actual reality of how much of a part this country actually plays.
It’s like there is a mental block in some climate activists as witnessed with the just stop oil clowns when rather than protest at the source, they prefer to sit in a road.
Another example is beech litter picking, it might clean a small area but it does nothing to halt the main problem.
Maybe It’s just me that sees the bigger picture ?
I haven’t dismissed the largest polluter at all. What I’ve said was that we shouldn’t have the attitude that just because China isn’t doing anything that we should just sit back and wait for them to do it first.
That’s a terrible attitude to have and solves nothing, and with that attitude, nothing will ever be solved.
As I said, the EU and UK combined account for around 9% of global emissions. If we and the EU went to net-zero then that’s a 9% reduction, which is significant. You’d never hear a company complaining of only 9% growth, or happy that they’ve only had a 9% drop in profits.
It’s enough to have some impact, and would show the rest of the world it can be done.
Just like with us taking the lead and setting examples in our support to Ukraine, e.g. first to donate tanks, first to donate longer-range cruise missiles (Storm Shadow) etc. If we took the same attitude above and just waited for the bigger fish to start then Ukraine would be in a much worse position.
The same applies to climate change. Someone needs to go first and we all need to take it seriously.
Litter picking on a beach doesn’t solve the main problem but it does help, at least locally. If more beaches are cleared then they will be a lot more clear beaches and a lot less litter going into the sea. The little things add up.
Please don’t mistake me for the likes of Greta or Just Stop Oil, and don’t lump us all in the same boat as those idiots.
I don’t consider most biomass sustainable in high quantities, and as long as we are talking about SAF made from biomass I’m not sure we are advancing much at all.
Then there’s seems to be a problem with using 100% SAF. I have no idea what or why, only that it’s necessary to mix it. Whatever’s the limiting factor in current engines that requires whatever it is in fossil fuels, needs a replacement researched.
I wonder just how much extra cost this fuel is, at a time the Defence Budget is stretched to its limit. There was a time the RAF had thoughts of defending the country, now its lets be net zero.
It’s a legal requirement. What do you want them to do?
Make an exception for defence because money is more urgently needed elsewhere or make the Treasury pay for every extra penny it costs with additional funding. Political choices should result in bills to the politicians who made them.
Nothing at all mucker…..but lets face it, it will make little or no difference when you look at China, Russia, India or for that matter the USAF….but it looks good.
If only the RAF had the funds to waste on this….
No. Its called progress. And the first stage of many new technological advancements alongside the war fighting whoosh bang stuff.
This is pure propaganda. The is not hint of information in this “news”.
For example, what are the pros and cons?
I guess for a lot of younger people anything Green-related has been taught as a fundamental belief if not a religion. All green things are good no matter what the cost. Questioning never mind criticising the true utility of such actions is practically blasphemy.
However being older and somewhat less indoctrinated and having a history in defence where realism not utopianism has always been my north star I have to question what is the value derived from this versus the cost of implementing it? We really do have a huge number of critical defence deficits right now and a political class which is angrily reluctant to any attempt to increase funding.
Whilst this project might be good for PR it’s actual contribution to the immediate deficits we’re experiencing in the armed forces is nil. The opportunity cost of spending money on this whilst we have no ground based air defence in a world full of hypersonic missiles and cheap drones is huge. This is a nice to have not a need to have project.
A utopian would pump more and more money into this project because the “fluffy bunny” nature of it makes them glow with happiness.
A realist would wrap it up take the money from it to attempt to put out one of a number of currently uncontrolled fires raging elsewhere in defence and only return to it once we have the spare financial resources to deal with it.
This is a rabbit hole of virtue signalling. What’s next, sustainable rocket fuel for Trident nuclear missiles to help reduce their environmental footprint? The first duty of the armed forces is defence, in old money, killing the enemy and facing down threats. Not writing environmental impact reports.