United States | News & Politics

7230 readers

98 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

pangyuehung@lemmy.ml

yogthos@lemmy.ml

The FAA reauthorization bill would preserve a future for leaded gas (wapo.st)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by silence7 to c/usa@lemmy.ml

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In particular, whatever politicians say, the Republican-controlled House has a rider in the FAA authorization bill which requires airports to continue selling leaded fuel for propeller aircraft forever:

The House version of the bill would require airports that receive federal grants to continue selling the same fuels they sold in 2018 in perpetuity.

While the Democratically-controlled Senate requires a phase-out:

The Senate version would require these airports to continue selling the same fuels they sold in 2022, with a sunset date of 2030 or whenever unleaded fuels are “widely available.”

For context, the FAA approved sale of unleaded fuel for all propeller planes last year, and there are local efforts to ban the sale of leaded fuel in locations where the unleaded fuel is now available

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] silence7 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Senate version does one more thing besides setting a deadline: it requires airports to switch to unleaded fuel when it becomes available. For any location served by more than one refinery, that creates a powerful financial incentive to shift: if you don't, your competitors might, and take a market away from you.

I'd say it's well-designed

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe. I'd rather just see leaded fuel being penalized instead of threatening to ban it. That should have the same incentive, but with financial instead of legal pressure.

[–] silence7 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd rather not have a world where rich dudes can pay extra for the privilege of wafting lead into kids lungs, but I think we're going to just have to disagree on this.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nobody wants lead in kids lungs. However, eliminating that completely eliminates a long standing privilege because there currently is no cleaner fuel. So we have three options:

ban it - kills flying those planes until an alternative fuel is produced
protect it - continues harming children at the same level and perhaps more (i.e. if it overrides local bans)
compromise - reduce flying until better fuels are produced

Both Democrats and Republicans are proposing the second option, with Democrats switching to the first after a few years. I'm proposing the third.

[–] silence7 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Last year, the FAA approved the first unleaded fuel that works for all existing small piston-driven propeller aircraft.

It's available today on a regional basis. Taking it national is basically a matter of forcing refiners to produce it (or one of the equivalents currently in development)

Reduce flying until it's more widely available would be a great move too.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Cool, so I think we should tax the use of leaded gas a lot higher than unleaded to encourage ramping up production of the new fuel. If we follow the Democrat plan, there's no real reason to ramp up production quickly, they'll just take their time.

[–] silence7 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is reason to ramp up though: as the unleaded fuel becomes available locally, airports are required to switch. So in any location served by more than one refinery, one refinery can grab market share by starting production of unleaded aviation gas.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Maybe? I guess it depends on how quickly the competition will step up. I guess one argument is that a refinery could lock out competitors if they're the first to convert in a region, but i don't know how competitive those contracts actually are. I know oil companies fix prices to an extent, so I'm just assuming that refineries are similar. So I guess I'm not optimistic that refineries wouldn't just agree to convert slowly.