Flying North: How Sustainable Aviation Fuel Is Reshaping Environmental Risk

If Santa ran an airline, his route plan would be impeccable: one sleigh, zero queues, and the most sustainable aviation fuel of all, reindeer power. 

For the rest of us, however, flying “north” into 2026 means confronting a hard truth: aviation’s environmental footprint is now a board-level risk, not a footnote. 

From the North Pole (policy ambition) to the South Pole (real-world constraints), the sector is being pulled between climate targets, supply limits, and rising scrutiny from customers, regulators, and insurers. 

Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is widely viewed as the most immediate lever to cut aviation emissions without waiting decades for new aircraft fleets. But the risk story is bigger than carbon alone.

Why conventional jet fuel is now an insurance issue

Traditional aviation relies on fossil kerosene, high energy density, globally traded, and tightly linked to price volatility and emissions exposure. 

The climate signal is clear: aviation emissions rebounded strongly after the pandemic, reaching ~950 Mt CO₂ in 2023 and around 2.5% of global energy-related CO₂ emissions. 

That headline understates the full warming influence: aviation’s non-CO₂ effects (notably contrails and induced cirrus) mean aviation has contributed around 4% of global temperature rise to date, despite being ~2.5% of CO₂. 

For insurers, this translates into multiple risk channels: (1) transition risk (policy, carbon pricing, SAF mandates), (2) liability and reputational risk (greenwashing claims, supply-chain integrity), and (3) physical risk (climate-driven disruption to operations and infrastructure). 

In short, “raw fuels” are no longer just an operating cost, they are a risk factor with underwriting implications.

What SAF is and what it can realistically deliver

Sustainable Aviation Fuel is a “drop-in” alternative to conventional jet fuel produced from approved pathways and feedstocks (for example, waste oils/fats, certain residues, and synthetic fuels). 

Its central promise is lifecycle emissions reduction: industry and regulators commonly cite up to ~80% lower lifecycle CO₂ versus fossil jet fuel, depending on the pathway and assumptions. 

That “lifecycle” caveat matters. SAF performance depends on feedstock sourcing, land-use impacts, processing energy, and verification boundaries. 

This is where environmental risk becomes measurable rather than rhetorical: robust chain-of-custody, credible accounting, and transparent claims are essential to avoid shifting risk from the atmosphere to the balance sheet.

Policy is accelerating demand. In Europe, ReFuelEU Aviation requires fuel suppliers to blend 2% SAF in 2025, rising to 6% by 2030 and 70% by 2050. 

The direction of travel is set, the challenge is scaling supply with integrity.

“North vs South”: ambition, adoption, and the practical bottlenecks

In the “north” of policy ambition, mandates and net-zero commitments are pushing SAF into procurement, reporting, and finance. In the “south” of implementation reality, three constraints dominate:

• Cost and competitiveness: SAF has been widely reported at 3–5x the price of conventional jet fuel, fuelling industry concerns and political debate about who pays for the transition.
• Supply concentration and logistics: limited production and uneven regional availability increase operational and contractual risk.
• Credible claims at scale: as SAF moves from pilot volumes to portfolio-level targets, proof becomes as important as fuel.

This is why Geneva mattered last week. 

The RSB Annual Conference (9–11 December 2025) put emphasis on implementation, scientific integrity, and scalable tools such as Book & Claim approaches—designed to help organisations credibly allocate SAF attributes even when physical delivery is constrained. 

Gentian’s COO, Karen Day, attended to track how integrity, verification, and nature impacts are being treated in real-world SAF scale-up discussions.

How insurers, investors, and corporates can act without greenwash

SAF reshapes environmental risk when it is paired with credible data and decision-grade verification.

• Insurers: SAF affects underwriting across aviation, energy, and infrastructure—construction risk for new plants, operational risk for feedstocks, and liability risk tied to sustainability claims. Expect increasing demand for evidence that SAF pathways meet credible sustainability criteria and that reported reductions are defensible.
• Investors: SAF investment is not only about yield; it is about durability under regulation and scrutiny. Policy clarity (e.g., EU blending requirements) supports long-term offtake structures, but pricing and supply volatility remain material. 
• Corporates and airlines: procurement should prioritise transparency: documented feedstock provenance, verified lifecycle accounting, and audit-ready claims, especially when using Book & Claim mechanisms discussed in Geneva. 

For organisations managing nature and climate together, this is also a data problem—one Gentian addresses with high-resolution nature intelligence and monitoring.

Santa can keep the reindeer—everyone else needs scalable solutions. SAF is not a silver bullet, but it is the most immediate route to lower aviation emissions while the fleet transitions over time. 

The environmental risk landscape is shifting quickly: mandates are tightening, scrutiny is rising, and credibility is becoming a competitive advantage. 

For insurers, investors, and corporates, the winning approach is simple: back decarbonisation and prove it with robust, auditable evidence.