eSAF is More than a Climate Solution, it is a Fuel Security Asset
30 April 2026
By: Dr David Mulrooney and Jeannie De Vynck
The recent conflict in Iran has shown how exposed aviation remains to fossil fuel supply shocks. For years, Sustainable Aviation Fuel has mainly been discussed as a climate measure. That is still true, but the current fuel crisis has added a second argument: fuel security.
Europe’s Fossil Fuel Exposure
Europe’s aviation system still depends heavily on imported fossil jet fuel and the crude oil used to produce it. The EU imports 30% to 40% of its jet fuel, and 95% of its crude oil, with around half of those imports coming from the Middle East. A prolonged blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, which normally carries about one-fifth of global oil and LNG flows, was described by the EU Transport Commissioner, Apostolos Tzitzikostas, as “catastrophic” for Europe and the wider economy.
The Cost to Aviation is Already Hitting
That is not an abstract risk. The impact has already been visible in aviation costs as kerosene jet fuel (jet A1) prices have more than doubled since the US-Israel war on Iran began. American Airlines has warned that fuel costs could add $4 billion to its bill this year, while European airlines also faced pressure, with profit warnings from carriers such as TUI and easyJet due to war-related supply concerns. Furthermore, multiple airlines are warning passengers of possible flight cancellations, with Lufthansa announcing cuts to 20,000 short-haul summer flights due to the rise in jet fuel prices, while ticket prices are going up to compensate for the extra costs.
eSAF as Energy Security
This is where eSAF should be viewed differently. eSAF (electro Sustainable Aviation Fuel) is often treated as a compliance cost for environmental policies such as ReFuelEU. However, it should also be treated as a domestic energy security measure. Synthetic aviation fuel can be made from renewable hydrogen and captured carbon, meaning that European production could reduce reliance on imported oil and imported refined jet fuel. The European Commission defines synthetic aviation fuels under ReFuelEU as drop-in liquid fuels made from renewable hydrogen and captured carbon.
Transport & Environment has also made the economic case. Its 2026 analysis proposes that scaling European eSAF production could deliver €20 billion in gross value added from building plants to meet 2030 mandate targets. It also estimates that up to 85% of investment could remain in Europe and that 4,000 jobs could be supported by operational eSAF plants needed for the ReFuelEU and UK SAF mandate targets.
EU Aviation Policy Framework is in Place
ReFuelEU Aviation already sets the direction. SAF must make up 2% of fuel at EU airports from 2025, rising to 70% by 2050. A specific synthetic fuel target also applies: 1.2% from 2030 and 35% by 2050. These targets are result in a fuel system that Europe can produce, regulate and protect more directly.
The eSAF Price Gap
The cost question is important. Is eSAF now cost-comparable with fossil jet fuel because of the Iran crisis? No, not yet. SAF can cost 2 to 5 times more than conventional jet fuel, and synthetic fuel (eSAF) remains even more expensive to produce than bio-based SAF. However, the current crisis has changed the comparison. Fossil jet fuel costs also need to be considered in the light of supply risk, war risk, price shocks and public bailouts.
Aviation’s Free Ride
Aviation has never paid the full cost of its pollution. In Ireland, the CSO states that commercial jet kerosene is exempt from excise duty, carbon tax and the NORA levy. ESRI research also notes that international aviation is exempt from VAT in Ireland, and that aviation received a large share of EU ETS allowances for free in the past.
The Public Voice on Fuel Costs
The public debate around fuel costs is also revealing. In Ireland, recent protests by farmers, hauliers and contractors gained public support after diesel prices rose by more than 20% following the Iran war. The Irish Independent reported that 56% of surveyed voters supported the protesters. That empathy is understandable: fuel costs affect livelihoods, food prices and rural businesses.
But a harder question follows. Will the same empathy be shown to people affected by climate change, especially when the costs are slower, less visible and less evenly distributed? If public pressure can be applied to reduce fuel taxes during a price shock, then public support must also be built for long-term aviation decarbonisation. The issue is not whether people should be punished for travelling but whether aviation can continue to rely on untaxed fossil fuel while the costs are passed to the climate, the taxpayer and the next generation.
Commercialising eSAF
eSAF development requires investment, policy certainty and public support. The next stage should focus on getting Europe’s first commercial scale eSAF projects to final investment decision. It would be wise to preserve the eSAF sub-targets under ReFuelEU, prioritising European-made eSAF and using mechanisms such as a pilot auction to support early production.
We need to take heed of the lesson from the conflict in Iran that fossil jet fuel carries climate risk, price risk and security risk. eSAF cannot solve every aviation problem, however, the alternative is to keep importing and suffer exposure from unstable supply routes and then pay for the damage when the system fails.
Conclusion
Europe is now faced with a choice. It can treat eSAF as a narrow emissions obligation, or it can treat it as part of a wider resilience strategy. The second option is stronger as it supports climate targets, creates industrial value, reduces exposure to fossil fuel shocks and gives aviation a clearer path away from imported oil.
For more: