Climate Killer on the Rise: “Green” Flying is a New Burden on the Global South

By Lea Thin, freelance author

The aviation industry presents sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) as a major hope in the fight against the climate crisis. Yet environmental and human rights groups are warning: behind this “green solution” lie new forms of ecological exploitation, particularly in the Global South.

International tourism remains an economic lifeline for many countries in the Global South. At the same time, the sector fuels global conflicts over climate protection, development, social justice, and the survival of local communities. Air travel, the backbone of long-haul tourism, is particularly in the spotlight. In 2023, emissions from aviation accounted for around 2.5 percent of global CO2 emissions, according to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and even produced 12 percent of all transport emissions. Aviation thus remains one of the most climate-damaging forms of mobility, with a rising trend: after the pandemic-related drop, emissions have returned to pre-crisis levels.

SAF & Co.: Hope or Greenwashing?

As a response to the climate crisis, industry and policymakers promote technical solutions: sustainable aviation fuels, more efficient aircraft, and synthetic fuels. In parts of the Global North, these approaches are now part of official sustainability strategies, regulated through mandates and quotas. Yet the numbers reveal the limits: according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), SAF will only cover 0.7 percent of global jet fuel consumption by 2025. Even optimistic forecasts indicate that technology alone cannot solve the problem as long as demand for air travel continues to grow. Experts and civil society groups also warn that many SAF feedstocks – such as vegetable oils, soy, and animal fats – compete directly with food production, local agriculture, and sensitive ecosystems in the Global South, exacerbating social and ecological conflicts rather than resolving them.

Omega Green: An Example of Shifting the Burden

The global aviation system reveals a stark distribution of benefits and costs. Profits and travel freedoms are concentrated in the Global North, while emissions, pollution, and land conflicts predominantly affect the South. Transnational climate-related costs become a socio-ecological burden for marginalized communities, even as wealth and mobility continue to grow in industrialized countries.

The planned Omega Green biofuel refinery in Paraguay illustrates the problem. The megaproject by the Brazilian ECB Group aims to supply Europe and North America with bio-kerosene, while Paraguay itself gains little. Local farmers and fishing communities face severe disadvantages: land loss, environmental degradation, water crises, and social conflicts. Feedstocks like soy and animal fats come from large-scale monocultures requiring heavy pesticide use, contributing massively to biodiversity loss. The already stressed Paraguayan Chaco is at risk of further destruction. Communities such as Santa Rosa near Villeta are directly threatened in terms of access to land, water, and traditional livelihoods. Meanwhile, the project primarily serves international airlines. Paraguay itself has minimal domestic aviation, so there is little local demand for bio-kerosene. International carriers promote a sustainable image and sell climate-friendly mobility, even though the social and environmental costs are borne elsewhere. Civil society organizations like Stay Grounded reject the sustainability claims of project developers; numerous NGO inquiries have gone unanswered, signalling a lack of transparency and disregard for local voices.

Countermovement: Climate Justice Instead of “Green” Cosmetics

Tourism, and air travel in particular, is often seen as an engine of economic development in the Global South. Precisely for this reason, the sector is a focal point in debates over climate protection, social justice, and development. Few industries illustrate these conflicting interests as clearly as global tourism. The infrastructure of international air travel is primarily used by wealthy people from the Global North. Profits and travel opportunities are concentrated there, while negative effects – from gentrification to land conflicts – fall on the Global South, often on already marginalized communities. Projects like Omega Green transform structural inequality into an existential threat.

Not everyone accepts this injustice. Many civil society organizations no longer demand cosmetic “green tourism,” but a fundamental system transformation. The network Stay Grounded now unites hundreds of organizations. They call not only for technical solutions but for a complete overhaul: mobilisation against airport expansion, night flights, and carbon-intensive mobility, along with progressive taxation and strict regulation of frequent flyers and SAF projects. Climate justice, for them, means flying less, promoting local and sustainable travel, and establishing international “loss and damage” mechanisms that truly account for environmental and social impacts. They demand binding sustainability criteria for aviation fuels, clear limits for offset programs, and stronger regulation of international airlines – so that mobility does not remain an exclusive privilege while the costs are shifted to vulnerable regions.

Why Technical Optimism Is Not Enough

The example of Paraguay shows that mobility can only be an opportunity for development – not a new form of global exploitation – if power, resources, and climate impacts are more equitably distributed. Technological progress and efficiency gains fall short if they ignore social and ecological risks. As long as demand and growth continue unchecked, and sustainability remains primarily a marketing argument, even SAF flights exacerbate burdens instead of alleviating them. Climate justice in international tourism therefore requires more than new fuels: it demands global solidarity, fair distribution of costs, and a break from aviation’s growth logic. The debate around SAF, green tourism, and innovative mobility is only beginning, but the shift toward socio-ecological transformation is essential. Otherwise, “green flying” will remain a privilege for a few.