The UK and EU governments are examining the use of animal fat, notably lard, as a greener aviation fuel option to lower the sector’s environmental impact. This approach promises a smaller carbon footprint during flight, but experts warn that the path to wide adoption could face significant hurdles. Transport researchers and environmental groups caution that switching to adipose-derived fuel may slow progress toward overall climate goals if produced or scaled improperly. The debate is part of a broader effort to rethink aviation energy sources while balancing safety, supply chains, and economic realities. The discussion continues to evolve as policymakers weigh the trade-offs involved in greener fuels versus practical deployment.
Animal-derived fuel has a long, controversial history in aviation. Since the mid-2000s, European production of fuel from animal byproducts has grown, yet experts insist that a complete shift away from traditional fuels remains unlikely. Alternative energy strategies and aviation fuel blends are being explored to reduce emissions without disrupting supply reliability or inflating costs for airlines and passengers alike. The conversation emphasizes that any single solution cannot fully meet the industry’s scale or the climate targets currently in sight, making a mix of options essential.
Analysts estimate that a long-haul flight between major cities could demand substantial quantities of animal fats if such fuels were used exclusively. This reality raises questions about the feasibility of meeting demand with animal sources alone. If production cannot keep pace, attention shifts to other sustainable feedstocks, including plant-based oils. However, increased use of some alternatives, such as certain palm oil derivatives, has associations with deforestation and higher greenhouse gas emissions when forests are converted to agricultural land. Beyond environmental considerations, broad adoption could influence food prices and the availability of other commodities, underscoring the interconnected nature of energy, land use, and global markets. Critics argue that a pragmatic, diversified approach will be needed—one that safeguards food security and fosters transparent supply chains while pushing for real, measurable reductions in aviation climate impact. — Source: Transport & Environment