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

  • silence7OP
    12·
    11 months ago

    It’s enough to be a big deal for communities near airports. Probably half or more of lead exposure if you live under the low-altitude landing/take-off areas

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      2·
      11 months ago

      I read this article about it, and it’s a much bigger problem than I thought. Imo, given this, the Republican option is untenable, but the Democrat solution is probably not fair either.

      The goal imo should be a dramatic reduction in leaded fuel use until an alternative is available, not a fixed time in years. So perhaps airports could be allocated certain amount of leaded fuel or leaded fuel takeoffs per day, and that amount would be set based on the population within a 1 mile radius of the airport.

      To me that seems the most reasonable. I don’t know if a fuel can be made available by 2030, I don’t think banning all takeoffs is acceptable, and forcing airports to allow it is certainly unacceptable.

      • silence7OPEnglish
        2·
        11 months ago

        The thing about unleaded aviation gas is that its availability is regional right now. You can buy it in some parts of California, but not everywhere yet. Somebody needs to light a fire under the refiners to make them produce it, and a deadline is a good way to do that.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          11 months ago

          It’s one way, another way to is reduce demand, either by taxing the crap out of leaded fuel or by restricting how much of it airports are allowed to sell.

          Setting a deadline just delays the fight because refineries know they can postpone the drama for another few years. Let’s say they already know how to make unleaded aviation fuel with enough octane for these older engines, but that it’s more expensive to produce, why would they make it available before the deadline? Just keep producing the old fuel until the last possible moment.

          • silence7OPEnglish
            2·
            11 months 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·
              11 months 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.

              • silence7OP
                2·
                11 months 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·
                  11 months 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.