The Climate Leadership Costume Party
Scott Kirby doesn't just walk the sustainability runway—he struts down it in seven-inch green heels while the actual numbers show he's barely left the dressing room. United Airlines' CEO has choreographed aviation's most elaborate climate leadership performance, positioning himself as the industry's environmental conscience while his competitors supposedly fiddle as the atmosphere burns.
"We're embracing a new goal to be 100% green by 2050," Kirby proclaimed with the confidence of a man who knows he'll be comfortably retired long before anyone can hold him accountable for that particular promise. Unlike his industry peers, Kirby has crafted a carefully tailored climate persona, rejecting what he dismissively calls ineffective "traditional carbon offsets" in favor of what he presents as the real solution: sustainable aviation fuel.
United's climate commitments come with the scientific veneer of third-party validation—the airline aims to reduce carbon emissions intensity by 50% by 2035 from a 2019 baseline, with the Science Based Targets initiative stamp of approval. It's the corporate equivalent of having your diet plan endorsed by a nutritionist while you're secretly franchising Pizza Hut locations in your basement.
The Disappearing Partner Trick
While Kirby was busy positioning himself as aviation's climate champion, something curious was happening behind the scenes. United Airlines' partnership with World Energy—once a cornerstone of its sustainable fuel strategy—had quietly vanished. The partnership's termination wasn't announced with a press release or investor call. In fact, it wasn't publicly disclosed at all until August 2025, when United acknowledged the relationship had ended "a few years ago" without providing a reason.
The timing couldn't be more revealing. World Energy, a pioneer in SAF production, shuttered its Paramount refinery in April 2025. The company's ambitious plans for a second plant in Houston have stalled due to what World Energy describes as "a lack of industry commitment." Translation: airlines talk a big game about sustainable fuel but won't sign the contracts necessary to make production economically viable.
Gene Gebolys, World Energy's CEO, didn't mince words about the industry's approach: "Some airlines were engaged in a pretty disingenuous effort to put out press releases." It's the sustainable aviation equivalent of announcing your engagement on social media while secretly filing for divorce. Gebolys discovered that "airlines were primarily marketing the service of decarbonisation to their customers" rather than actually decarbonizing—like selling tickets to a flight that never takes off.
The 0.3% Solution and Executive Climate Math
For all Kirby's climate leadership posturing, United Airlines reported that sustainable aviation fuel accounted for approximately 0.3% of its total aviation fuel usage in 2024. Not 30%. Not 3%. A mere 0.3%—roughly the same percentage as the fine print in a credit card agreement or the chance of finding an honest sustainability claim in an airline annual report.
This isn't just a United Airlines problem—it's an industry-wide masterclass in mathematical misdirection. The International Air Transport Association projects SAF will account for only 0.7% of total jet fuel consumption in 2025, a figure that makes United's 0.3% look less like leadership and more like slightly-below-average followership.
The industry's track record speaks volumes: only 36 out of 165 SAF projects announced by airlines over the past 12 years have actually been realized—a 22% success rate that should send prudent investors running for the emergency exits faster than passengers on a smoke-filled plane. Even if all pending SAF projects are completed, they would only supply about 12 billion gallons, roughly 10% of what's needed for net-zero goals.
The Executive Compensation Compass
To understand why airline executives like Kirby engage in this elaborate sustainability theater, one need only follow the money. SAF currently costs three to five times more than conventional jet fuel. For an industry with notoriously thin profit margins, voluntarily tripling your second-largest operating expense isn't exactly the fast track to executive bonuses.
Speaking of bonuses, Kirby earned $33.9 million in 2024, making him the highest-paid airline CEO. His compensation package included a $1.2 million base salary, a $3 million bonus, $5.1 million in non-equity incentive plan compensation, and $24.4 million in stock awards. That's an 82% increase from his 2023 compensation of $18.6 million.
The research doesn't indicate whether United's executive compensation package includes meaningful climate metrics, even as 54% of S 500 companies now integrate such measures. Kirby has mastered the art of climate leadership that costs him nothing personally—a CEO who collects $33.9 million while his sustainability commitments literally run on fumes (0.3% of them, to be precise). While climate-related metrics increasingly appear in executive compensation plans, United's executive rewards appear firmly tethered to traditional financial performance indicators.
The result? United's greenhouse gas emissions actually increased in 2024 to 52,239,731 metric tons, up from 49,404,525 in 2023, despite all those sustainability commitments, with the airline blaming "growth and limited SAF supply." It's like claiming your diet failed because bakeries kept making delicious pastries.
The Real Price of Leadership
What would genuine climate leadership from an airline CEO actually look like? For starters, it would require accepting higher fuel costs and potentially lower margins in the near term. A recent survey by the Rocky Mountain Institute found that airlines show an average willingness to pay of $6 per gallon for SAF, nearly three times the current fossil jet fuel price of $2.29 per gallon. Genuine leadership would mean paying that premium now, not just talking about it in sustainability reports.
Real leadership would also mean making binding, long-term commitments to SAF producers that enable them to secure financing and scale production. The aviation industry anticipates needing 330-445 million tonnes of SAF annually by 2050 to meet decarbonization goals. Getting there requires building production capacity now, not waiting until 2049.
United has taken some steps in this direction. The airline launched the Eco-Skies Alliance to co-invest in SAF with over 50 corporate partners. Its Sustainable Flight Fund started with over $100 million in investments and has grown to exceed $200 million in commitments from 22 corporate partners, including major players like Google and Air New Zealand.
But these initiatives, while laudable, represent a fraction of what's needed for genuine transformation. Even at $200 million, it's a rounding error compared to the billions required to build a viable SAF industry. It's like trying to build a transcontinental railroad with the budget for a model train set. As Kirby himself acknowledged, SAF currently represents "a very minuscule percentage of United's flights"—though he believes in the potential for growth as the industry develops.
The Investment Risk Reality
For investors backing United's sustainability initiatives, the compensation structure reveals troubling misalignment. Kirby's $24.4 million in stock awards aren't contingent on achieving the 0.3% SAF usage—they're tied to traditional metrics that reward growth regardless of environmental impact. This creates a perverse incentive where executives profit from announcing ambitious climate targets while facing no financial consequences when those targets prove unattainable.
The quiet termination of the World Energy partnership exemplifies this dynamic. United could walk away from a cornerstone SAF supplier without disclosure, market consequences, or executive accountability. Meanwhile, Kirby's compensation increased 82% in the same period that United's emissions rose and its primary SAF partner shuttered operations.
The Sustainability Shell Game
As World Energy's shuttered refinery stands as a monument to the consequences of executive sustainability theater, investors and climate scientists alike must develop a new framework for evaluating airline leadership. One that measures actual SAF procurement percentages and long-term producer contracts rather than distant targets and glossy sustainability reports.
Kirby's approach to climate leadership resembles a sophisticated shell game—dazzling observers with ambitious 2050 commitments while the actual SAF usage remains hidden under the 0.3% shell. The quiet termination of the World Energy partnership reveals how quickly these commitments can vanish when they conflict with quarterly performance metrics.
Until executive compensation aligns with genuine climate progress, Scott Kirby and his fellow airline CEOs will continue to fly high on promises while sustainable aviation fuel projects crash land beneath them. The real dirty secret of the airline industry isn't just that clean jet fuel projects are failing—it's that they're designed to fail in a system where executives are rewarded for making commitments, not keeping them. In Kirby's world, climate leadership pays $33.9 million annually, while actual climate action remains perpetually grounded.
Things to follow up on...
-
Delta's competitive positioning: United and Delta Air Lines accounted for over 86% of profits among the seven largest U.S. airlines, with both carriers focusing on premium travel and loyalty programs to enhance profitability amid challenging market conditions.
-
Government SAF targets: The Biden administration aims for 3 billion gallons per year of SAF capacity by 2030, but only 5 million gallons were consumed in 2021, increasing to just 24.5 million gallons in 2023—highlighting the massive scale-up challenge.
-
Air Products' strategic retreat: The industrial gas giant's exit from a significant SAF expansion project with World Energy signals broader challenges in the sustainable aviation fuel sector that extend beyond airline commitments.
-
Corporate willingness to pay: Airlines and logistics providers show an average willingness to pay $6 per gallon for SAF, while corporate buyers are willing to pay an average of $300 per ton of CO2 emissions abated for SAF certificates—revealing significant market demand despite production challenges.