Canada Should Make Air Travel Sustainable

The national transportation project that Canada should pursue

Last week, I explained why high-speed rail (HSR) is wrong for Canada. It's not just that the Alto proposal is badly structured, though it is. It's that HSR itself is a poor fit for the country. It’s wrong for our geography, wrong for our population patterns, and wrong for our expertise and existing industries.

Indeed, it is so wrong that it becomes helpful. The problems with HSR are signposts, pointing us toward what we should do instead.

HSR from Montreal to Toronto is a project driven by the desire, all too common in the national psyche, to look more like Europe and less like the United States. That’s a mistake, obviously; we should instead try to be the best version of Canada rather than a faded copy of some other country. We shouldn't try to ape France or Spain, and we certainly shouldn’t try to build HSR just because the Americans have not.

What should we do instead?

We should lean into air travel. We should be the world leader in sustainable aviation.

I mean this quite literally. Canada could—and should—be the country that solves the problem of sustainable air travel. It's a problem that needs solving: aviation is proving to be one of the hardest sectors to decarbonize. It's a problem we're uniquely positioned to solve, with our combination of renewable energy potential, biomass resources, and challenging aviation needs. And it's a problem that, when solved, would do more for national unity than any rail line ever could.

This is the national transport project Canada needs: not copying someone else's past, but building our own future… and the world’s.

Here's how to do it.

From Problems to Solutions

Let’s begin by reviewing the specific features of the Canadian case; why HSR doesn’t fit them well; and why sustainable aviation does.

The features in question are Canada’s geography, its population patterns, and its lack of relevant expertise.

Start with our geography. Canada is a vast country of challenging terrain, and most of it is ill-suited to rail. Southwestern Ontario to eastern Quebec is the best case in the whole country, with its relatively empty and gently rising terrain. But beyond that, the difficulties arise. One can draw a rough line that links the major cities between Toronto and Quebec City, yes. But one can’t extend it to the Maritimes, so making a connection to Fredericton and Halifax would be challenging; and of course Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland aren’t part of the main at all. Going the other way, the Prairies are fine landscape for rail, but are separated from central Canada by the stony, wooded Canadian Shield, and from British Columbia by the Rocky Mountains. Building high-speed rail links between all these regions would cost immense sums and be the work of a lifetime.

And then, when finished, we’d have a system that still would not knit the country together.

That’s because Canada’s population is distributed in such a way that rail can’t serve; our major population centres are too far apart. Even at HSR speeds, Toronto to Halifax (to say nothing of St. John’s) is not a a trip that anyone would prefer to take by rail.¹ The same is true of Toronto to Calgary, or to Vancouver. Take Toronto out of the equation, and it becomes worse: trips from the east to west coast or vice-versa will never be done by rail, no matter how fast that rail is.

What connects those city-pairs today? It’s air travel. Domestic interprovincial flights account for 85% of the business of Canada’s air carriers, and carry the average Canadian around 2,200 kms annually. It is air travel that binds Canada together.

Once, those numbers would have been something we’d boast about. Today we are reluctant to celebrate how often we fly, because air travel is a powerful contributor to global warming. Fixing air travel to be sustainable—by which I mean, to be a mode that does not heat the Earth—should erase that reluctance.

The final problem with HSR is that it is a foreign technology, one we have no experience in building, nor in operating. If we were serious about creating a domestic industry here, we’d have to begin by importing expertise from Asia and Europe, who know how to design HSR, construct it, plan the service, and maintain the works.

But sustainable energy is different; that’s a field where we do have substantial domestic expertise. Canada already has thriving agriculture and energy sectors, as well as experience processing and transporting its outputs. We don’t have everything we will need, and will have to import some expertise, but we’re already well positioned to begin.

Ultimately, the strong argument for HSR in Canada is cultural; veneration for the railway, the institution that helped to build the country. The railroad was indeed crucial to the country’s founding… but aviation has been equally vital to the country’s sense of self. Bush pilots opened the north, and air links continue to be the principal lifeline to the territories. The Last Spike and “Canadian Railroad Trilogy” are touchstones in our national culture, but so too are Billy Bishop and the Avro Arrow. The airplane is as much Canada’s heritage as the railroad; why shouldn't Canada be the country to make aviation sustainable?

So instead of serving only the Quebec City–Toronto corridor at the expense of the rest of the country, let’s transform aviation instead. Let’s sustainably link every Canadian city to every other one. And in the process, let’s share the wealth, building sustainable refineries in central Canada, the Prairies, and the North, and manufacturing facilities in British Columbia and the Maritimes. We can knit together the country even as we create something valuable for the world: a sustainable future in aviation.

The Two-Track Vision

That future, to be clear, is already coming. There is work to be done, but the effort will be in traveling the path, not determining the route.

Sustainable aviation will rest on two technologies:

1. sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) for long-haul flights, and

2. electric aircraft for shorter routes.

What's missing is the scale and infrastructure to make these technologies mainstream. That is Canada’s opportunity.

Let's start with SAF. If you’re unfamiliar with SAF, absolutely read this wonderful explainer written by my fellow Fellow of the Roots of Progress Institute Ben James. Here’s a graphic from that explainer which makes the point succinctly:

Sustainable jet fuel is chemically identical to conventional jet fuel, but its carbon is drawn from the atmosphere, meaning that when SAF is burned, the carbon that enters the atmosphere returns there, leaving no net increase in carbon. (In fact, as Ben notes, SAF also produces fewer contrails, which is another contributing factor to global warming.)

Let’s pause for a moment to take stock. From a transportation point of view, air travel is the best transportation mode:

• It links each city with every other city in the world, irrespective of distance or geography

• It has its own right of way (so to speak); there is no congestion in the air

• It is the fastest mode over medium-to-long distances, easily beating ships, road vehicles, and rail, even HSR

The biggest constraint on air travel is that it is unsustainable. Conventional jet fuel takes carbon from inside the earth and leaves it in the atmosphere, damaging the planet in ways that are irreversible in the short- and medium-term. This is what holds air travel back. If we can eliminate this handicap, we will unleash the world’s greatest travel mode, yielding immense benefits for everyone.²

The chief barrier to SAF is that it is costly. In 2022, the price of a Mt of SAF was $2,437 USD, versus $1,094 USD for conventional fuel, so roughly 2.5x more expensive. Producing more of it will bring the price down, as learning curves permit cheaper production; improving our sustainable electricity production will help as well, as electricity is the most expensive input.

Progress is being made on both fronts, but slowly. Global SAF production reached half-a-million tons (i.e., 0.5 Mt) in 2023. That’s double what was produced the year before. What was produced in 2024 isn’t definite yet, but it was projected that the amount would triple to 1.5 Mt. That’s impressive growth! But it still leaves SAF volume at less than 1% of the global demand for jet fuel… demand that will continue to increase.

There are two ways to make SAF: bio-SAF from plant materials, and e-SAF from captured carbon dioxide and renewable energy. Everyone agrees we'll need both. But so far, there is no global leader in the field.

I say it should be Canada.

Here's why. To succeed in SAF, a country needs two things: immense amounts of electricity and immense amounts of biomass. Canada has both.

E-SAF needs massive amounts of renewable energy. Ontario and especially Quebec have immense hydropower, unrivalled globally; and the Prairies have immense potential for wind and, despite their northerly latitudes, solar. And conveniently, most of this power is produced far from cities, allowing renewable energy installations and SAF production facilities to be co-located without land-use conflicts.

Meanwhile bio-SAF needs gigantic inputs of biomass, notably wood chips and agricultural waste. Central Canada and British Columbia have ample amounts of the former, and the Prairies the latter. We have well-developed forestry and agricultural infrastructure that already collects and transports biomass at scale. Where others would need to build these logistics networks from scratch, we can adapt existing ones… not to mention our existing experience in energy processing and distribution.

Sustainable fuel is one part of the equation. Another is sustainable electric aircraft.

The revolution in battery tech began in personal electronics and moved to electric vehicles; as we’ve discussed before, the latter revolution is poised to sweep away its predecessors, with all markets for gasoline-powered cars becoming open only to electric cars no later than 2040. It’s less discussed, but the same revolution is coming to aviation. Electric planes seating from 9 to 19 passengers are being certified for commercial flights, including in Canada. More spacious planes carrying 100 or even almost 200 could be flying by the end of the decade. They're poised to operate on routes of around 250 kilometers: the kind of regional connections that crisscross Canada.

Think about routes like Toronto to Kingston, Vancouver to Victoria, Halifax to Fredericton, and more. These are close enough that high-speed rail is inappropriate, and conventional jets are inefficient; they just reach cruising altitude and then must descend. But they're perfect for electric planes.

The two tracks complement each other. SAF handles the long-haul routes where electric aircraft won't be viable for decades, while electric aircraft serve the shorter routes more efficiently than SAF-powered planes can. Over time, electric-only craft will extend their range, as batteries improve; and SAF will become more economical for shorter-range trips, as economies of scale make it cheaper. Together, they form a complete solution for sustainable air travel.

The beauty of this two-track approach is that we can start small but think big. We can begin with specific routes and facilities while building toward a comprehensive transformation of air travel. Each success makes the next step easier. And unlike HSR, where the whole route must be built before offering any benefit, sustainable aviation can be built incrementally, learning and improving as we go.

Making It Real

How would it work?

The details would be complicated, but at the highest level, it would consist of two things: a federal commitment to producing SAF, and to obtaining electric aircraft.

For SAF production, Canada should start a Crown corporation to produce SAF. That’s the model that has served Canada well in other strategic industries. Call it “SkyFuel Canada” or “CarbuCiel Canada”, after “PetroCanada” from generations before. SkyFuel Canada should begin with bio-SAF, as the approach with the greatest technological maturity (i.e., the HEFA process; 85% of global SAF is currently made this way), to get started quickly, while working to establish facilities for e-SAF. I’m agnostic as to whether the government finances these projects itself or uses the Canada Infrastructure Bank and other tools to leverage private investment, so long as it gets the work started.

As production scales up and costs come down—which they will, as they have with every other renewable technology—SkyFuel Canada could diversify its approach. Directly producing SAF for use on domestic routes is the place to begin, but once we’ve done so, we can introduce carrots and sticks. The USA uses carrots while the EU uses sticks: respectively, tax credits for production, and mandates for a percentage of SAF to be used by airlines, with the amount rising over time. Canada can use both models, and with confidence, knowing it is investing into producing a supply of the SAF required.

This incremental approach has another advantage: it's more attractive to private investment. Each successful SAF facility in Canada makes funding the next ones easier, and would encourage wholly-private facilities to compete with SkyFuel Canada, increasing supplies and building a sector.³

For electric aircraft, Canada should follow the same route: either establish a Crown corporation to build them, or work with an existing aerospace firm to build them by offering the full suite of industrial-policy tools: favourable tax treatment, loan guarantees, visas for foreign experts, and guaranteed markets.

Those market guarantees can start small, route by route, airport by airport. The government could begin by picking a regional route with high volume, and mandate that, by a certain year, direct flights must be performed by electric aircraft only. This stick might be combined with a carrot of subsidies to offset airlines’ capital and operating costs for these routes, though such subsidies would have to be time-limited. This mirrors what governments around the world are doing for electric vehicles, through the Glasgow Declaration.

I’m agnostic as to which route to begin with, but we might consider Vancouver to Victoria. It would be an excellent testbed: high traffic, short distance, with predictable weather conditions. Further, it exemplifies the kind of commuter service (under 500km) that currently has the highest emission intensity (251g CO₂ per km): exactly where electric aircraft can make the biggest impact. Success there would provide the experience needed for other routes; Edmonton to Calgary, say, which are farther apart but still within range of emerging electric aircraft technology.⁴

How much would this cost?

As a rough back-of-the-envelope estimate, perhaps $50 billion over 15 years. As I’ve written before, the human mind has trouble estimating large numbers, so to put that in perspective:

• About 150% of what the government spent on the Trans Mountain Pipeline ($4B to purchase and $30B to expand)

• Less than a third of the Harper government’s $180B Investing in Canada Plan ($180B over the twelve years 2016-2028)

• The same as the federal government spends on healthcare transfers in one year

• On an annualized basis, 0.67% or less of federal spending

Of course, the relevant comparison here is to HSR. The government has already committed $4 billion for the Alto HSR project as a down payment; full HSR will ultimately cost as much as $65 billion.

That same money, invested in sustainable aviation, would provide more benefit to Canadians, and faster.

That’s true for a few reasons. For one, HSR can’t be built or operated piecemeal; only when the line is finished, decades hence, can it begin to be used. For another, there is no domestic HSR expertise, so it must be obtained elsewhere. By contrast, Canada has much of what it needs for a sustainable-aviation project. Canada has:

• Agricultural and forestry waste products to exploit, though supply chains will need adjusting

• Significant sustainable energy production, though it will need much more

• Fuel distribution networks, though they will need adapting

• Aerospace manufacturing facilities, though they need retooling

• Expertise in the relevant fields, though additional talent will need to attracted from abroad—electric-aircraft adoption from Norway, e-SAF development from Germany

A future of sustainable aviation is coming, albeit slowly. The world needs more SAF, and faster. To get it, what's needed is coordination, commitment, and a willingness to spend at the scale of a national government to build and sustain a new industry.

It is these things that a national project can provide.

National Benefits

The benefits of transforming aviation extend far beyond transportation itself.

There would be economic benefits, the sort that flow from creating entirely new industries. SAF production facilities would create employment in multiple regions, from plant operators to chemical engineers. Electric aircraft development would strengthen our aerospace sector, creating high-tech jobs across the country. The supporting infrastructure—from renewable energy installations to cold-weather testing facilities—would generate opportunities in construction, maintenance, and technical services.

Once established, the products and expertise can be exported. The whole world needs sustainable aviation solutions. By developing them here, we create opportunities to sell SAF; and electric aircraft; not to mention SAF itself. When other countries look to decarbonize their aviation sectors, they'd look to Canadian expertise, Canadian technology, and Canadian standards.

There would be environmental benefits. Aviation hasn’t decarbonized yet because it is a hard and expensive problem to solve. Developing and implementing solutions here would be a gift to the world.

And there would be social benefits. Unlike HSR, which would concentrate its effects in a single corridor, this project could create opportunities across the country. Every region would have a meaningful role to play. This broad participation matters for national unity. And it would present a new face of the country to the world; it would show that Canada can do more than sell natural resources while buying everything else abroad. It can develop the solutions the world needs.

Last week, I argued against building high-speed rail in Canada. Some readers found that disappointing: it's hard to let go of the dream of sleek, fast trains connecting our cities. I understand that feeling. HSR is ambitious, sustainable, and useful: the things we want from the future.

Transforming aviation is also ambitious, sustainable, and useful, and in ways that suit the country. Our future lies not in pretending to be a dense European country, but in solving the challenges that come with being Canada. Instead of spending billions to serve one corridor, we can invest in innovations that benefit everyone. And instead of following, we can lead the world.

That's a problem worthy of Canada. Let's get started on solving it.

1. Anyone who values their time, that is. Some don’t and will take such a trip just because it’s by rail; but then you haven’t built a transport network, you’ve built a tourist attraction.

2. There is another constraint that is also important: airfield capacity. This is a serious challenge that also needs to be addressed. It will be the subject of a future newsletter.

3. Another Fellow of the Roots of Progress Institute, Sean Fleming, has written up Terraform Industries, perhaps the most prominent startup in the sustainable-fuel sector, and its many competitors.

4. Toronto to Buffalo would also be a fine choice, but not to begin a nation-building project.