The Demand for CORSIA-Eligible Carbon Credits.

According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Aviation Sustainability Outlook 2026, the aviation sector is shifting from high-level aspirational targets to a phase of ambitious pragmatism. While the commitment to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 remains firm, industry leaders are now recalibrating their pathways to account for volatile fuel prices, geopolitical trade tensions, and the structural realities of carbon markets.

In 2025, global airports handled 9.8 billion passengers, marking the completion of the post-pandemic recovery phase. This momentum is expected to continue, with 10.2 billion passengers projected for 2026. However, this growth provides a double-edged sword: while profitability is high, the absolute volume of emissions makes the transition more daunting.

About CORSIA.

Established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) is a global market-based mechanism designed to stabilize net carbon dioxide emissions from international flights. To achieve this, the scheme mandates that airlines offset any carbon growth exceeding a baseline currently set at 85% of 2019 emission levels. Carriers can meet these obligations by utilizing approved sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) or by purchasing certified carbon credits from recognized environmental programs. While currently in its voluntary first phase, the program has already expanded to 130 participating states as it prepares to become compulsory for the broader industry in 2027.

Carbon markets & CORSIA demand.

As regulatory frameworks tighten, carbon markets and offsetting mechanisms have moved from the periphery to the center of airline strategic planning. The report and other 2026 analyses have signaled a major liquidity crisis with a shortage of credits projected. 

The demand-supply paradox:

Demand spike: New estimates suggest a demand for 78 million CORSIA-eligible credits to cover 2025 emissions alone. 

Supply bottleneck: As of early 2026, the available supply of these specific credits is only 31.3 million tonnes, largely due to slow government authorization of projects. 

Market impact: This massive deficit is expected to drive airlines to aggressively seek new eligible programs, putting immense pressure on carbon project host countries to accelerate their approval processes.

Key developments in the CORSIA ecosystem include:

• Baseline stability: Offsetting requirements are measured against a baseline of 85% of 2019 emissions.
• Credit demand: During the first phase (2024–2026), clean fuels are expected to cover only 6–10% of offsetting requirements, leaving carbon credits to cover the remainder.
• Pricing pressures: Analysts warn of a potential credit shortage. Carbon credit prices, which stood at roughly $21 per tonne in late 2025, are projected to exceed $60 per tonne after 2030. Even at these higher rates, credits remain significantly cheaper than the carbon abatement costs currently associated with SAF.

SAF remains the primary lever for decarbonization. 

In 2025, production doubled to 1.9 million tonnes (approximately 0.6% of total jet fuel consumption), but this remains a fraction of what is required for the steep mandates looming after 2030.

The transition is no longer just an environmental mandate; it has become a matter of energy security. Governments are increasingly viewing local SAF production as a way to reduce dependence on fossil fuel imports and achieve energy dominance.

• Trade barriers: Geopolitical rivalries have disrupted the flow of feedstocks. For example, most SAF relies heavily on fats and oils and the US and China have engaged in a series of tariff disputes affecting Used Cooking Oil (UCO) and soybean flows.
• Regional hubs: China is positioning itself as a global SAF exporter, recently granting export permits for 1.2 million tonnes of SAF. Meanwhile, the US has extended its 45Z tax credits through 2029 to incentivize domestic production.

Outside of SAF, the report also highlights a recalibration of timelines for next-generation propulsion.

• Hydrogen: Airbus recently postponed the development timeline for its hydrogen-powered aircraft, citing an immature ecosystem for production and airport integration.
• Hybrids: Industry interest is shifting toward hybrid-electric regional aircraft as a more practical near-term solution.
• AI and Efficiency: Carriers like Alaska Airlines are using AI for real-time flight planning to optimize routes based on weather and traffic, while Google Flights now displays contrail warming risk to increase transparency for passengers.

Under the new revision of its Corporate Net-Zero Standard (version 2.0), the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has opened the pathway for SAF certificates to be allowed as an indirect mitigation measure under certain criteria and circumstances. The industry has broadly welcomed this development, but confidence in the outcome continues to be moderated by significant uncertainty and divergence of views.

The European Union is also preparing for a major review of its Emissions Trading System (ETS) for aviation in July 2026. Currently, the ETS is limited to internal EU flights, with a stop-the-clock provision on international flights set to expire at the end of 2026. To address the economic disadvantage faced by EU carriers, the industry is advocating for a SAF Border Adjustment Mechanism (SAF-BAM). This mechanism would charge international flights departing the EU via non-EU hubs the same SAF-related costs faced by European airlines, effectively preventing carbon leakage, or the practice of carriers refueling in regions with cheaper, conventional fuel to avoid green premiums.

The outlook for 2026 is one of cautious persistence. While the green premium for SAF remains high, approaching $3,000 per metric tonne in Europe, the establishment of clear regulations, regional policy clusters, and interoperable carbon accounting systems is seen as the only way to convert ambition into investment. As the report concludes, the destination of net-zero aviation is unchanged, but the flight path is being adjusted for a much more turbulent reality.

Invert Insights.

💡 Roughly one-third of large global airlines now state that their own internal progress on decarbonization will dictate how many offsets they buy, signaling a move away from low-quality offsets toward high-integrity removals that can stand up to regulatory scrutiny. Invert’s Bonos Jaguar del Mayab nature-based carbon removal credit portfolio is CORSIA-eligible. If you are an airline looking to secure a long-term offtake stream of high-integrity credits, let’s chat. 

💡 While there is a clear shift in 2026 toward carbon dioxide removals with direct offtake agreements growing to over $7 billion by late 2025, high-quality CDR currently comprises only 6% of the total voluntary carbon market. Within this small segment, availability is further constrained; fewer than 10% of reviewed CDR projects meet rigorous quality thresholds. Airlines looking to be proactive will be securing a stream of nature-based carbon removal credits now because it allows companies to meet the rigorous, high-integrity regulatory standards at a fraction of the cost of technological alternatives. While tech-based solutions can range from $170 to $500 per tonne, nature-based removals remain accessible between $7 and $24, offering a massive economic advantage while reaching net-zero goals. This strategy is particularly critical given the extreme scarcity of quality credits, with fewer than 10% of projects meeting the thresholds required to survive modern auditing. By locking in a dedicated supply now, firms can bypass the intense competition of a market where over $7 billion in offtake agreements has already constrained future availability. 

💡The report acknowledges that carbon markets are not immune to global conflict. For example, in March 2026, CORSIA carbon contract prices actually slipped to new lows as the conflict in the Middle East sent jet fuel prices to record highs, forcing airlines to prioritize immediate fuel costs over long-term offsetting.