When booking with the LH Group, if you have a bad conscience about flying, you can currently decide: either you book a “green fare” or you donate a few euros to strange climate projects – but that will soon change.
If you book on the Austrian website, for example, there are several tariffs available: There are four economy and three business tariffs. The tariffs labeled "Economy Green" or "Business Green" are highlighted in color. They are not exactly cheap, but they are attractive: rebooking is possible with the eco variant, luggage and seat reservation are included, as is SAF fuel to fly more sustainably - is this the tariff to ease your conscience?
What does “SAF” mean
SAF stands for " Sustainable Aviation Fuel " , which is produced without fossil components, e.g. from biomass, waste oils, fats, but costs about three times as much per ton as kerosene.
If passengers opt for the "Green" tariff, the airline buys the corresponding amount from ÖMV and uses it to fuel a flight every few weeks. However, the amount of SAF fuel purchased is extremely small.
Austrian's press department has issued a restriction: only 20% of the "Green Fare" surcharge will be used to purchase SAF, the other part will be invested in "other climate protection projects". It is not explained why.
“The hut doesn’t exist!”
During the booking process, passengers can also participate in these "other climate protection projects" without purchasing a "Green Fare." This is done by selecting a different fare and sliding a toggle from approximately €2 to €30. This donation supports individual climate projects selected by the compensation provider Climate Austria (part of Kommunalkredit) according to criteria that are not transparent. These projects, in partnership with the Lufthansa Group, cover several locations worldwide and focus on reforestation, heating system conversions, household energy supply, CO2 storage in concrete, and other initiatives. In Austria, Climate Austria's projects, financed by AUA and other companies, promote, for example, the construction of renewable energy plants and energy efficiency measures.
On its homepage, Austrian cites a certain “Blauspitz Hütte” (Kals am Großglockner) as an example of a project, where a diesel generator was allegedly replaced by photovoltaics.
However, this hut doesn't exist. And the photo on the AUA website shows a completely different hut. The Kals tourist information office states: " Unfortunately, there is no Blauspitzhütte in Kals."
When asked, Philipp Trummer of Climate Austria admitted that a project had been "accidentally misnamed or given a colloquial name ." The correct name is the "Kals-Matreier-Törl-Haus," which was equipped with solar panels in 2020. Austrian Airlines (AUA), which has no knowledge of these details but collects money from customers for projects, had mistakenly adopted the incorrect name. Climate Austria refused to provide a photo of the funded property, claiming they had " no photos released for use by third parties ." The hut's leaseholder also did not respond to a request for a photo. Is this how you build trust with donors? Hardly!
It is easy to see that the individual projects, scattered around the world and difficult to verify, are nothing more than a nice climate goodie, but have no relevance whatsoever for the global climate balance. It is annoying for customers when they donate to projects but are given only empty phrases and incomprehensible project goals instead of detailed information. For the climate (and your own wallet) it is certainly better to put a private PV system on your roof, drive less or forego some flights.
Hardly relevant
To give a rough idea of the relevance of the voluntary environmental surcharge, Anna Pachinger from the Austrian Airlines press office says: “ Currently, approximately 3-5% of our passengers take advantage of the CO2 offsetting offer. We aim to continuously increase this percentage.” She further states: “In 2022, the entire Lufthansa Group used around 13.000 tons of SAF (Sustainable Aircraft Fuel). This represented just under 0,2% of the Lufthansa Group’s total fuel requirement (7,6 million tons).” By 2030, the Lufthansa Group aims to increase this share to one million tons.
Surcharge comes
From 2025, there will be a mandatory SAF surcharge, which is already being levied for departures from next year in 27 EU countries. The ridiculously low surcharge will be up to €5 on economy tickets in Europe, and up to a maximum of €72 on long-haul flights. LH wants to use this to finance an addition of 2% SAF to all flights. It is doubtful whether this will really work.
More important, however, is clarifying other questions: Couldn't the number of flights be reduced somehow? Do there really need to be 11 to 12 flights a day from Vienna to Frankfurt, or up to 10 flights to Zurich, or 25 flights from Frankfurt to London? Wouldn't fewer flights with more seats suffice? Is it reasonable to expect passengers to wait an extra hour for any flight? And does every short-haul route (despite its economic importance) absolutely have to be served by an airplane? There are at least some initiatives: Austrian Airlines discontinued some ultra-short-haul flights years ago, but now Lufthansa is picking up more than a third of the former VIE passengers from Salzburg and Linz for flights to Germany; many travel by car, only a few by train. Lufthansa continues to serve short routes in Germany despite good train connections.
The mandatory SAF surcharge obviously helps more with refueling than the voluntary minimum amount, but it also has only a small impact. Taxing kerosene could change travel behavior. Legal minimum flight prices that at least cover taxes and fees are currently no longer an issue. The train, which is outrageously expensive for international travel, should finally be made cheaper and better coordinated internationally.
This article was written by: Mag. Wolfgang Ludwig.
2 Comments