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

  • @[email protected]
    0•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.

    • @[email protected]OP
      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.

      • @[email protected]
        1•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.