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

  • silence7@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    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
      11·
      1 year ago

      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@slrpnk.netOP
        2·
        1 year ago

        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
          21·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              1 year ago

              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@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
                1·
                1 year ago

                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·
                  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.