2 ms·
Given the heavy handed way that lead was removed from fuel for passenger vehicles, I'm still perplexed that a tiny lobby has managed to keep it around basically
by sidewndr46 5y ago
Given the heavy handed way that lead was removed from fuel for passenger vehicles, I'm still perplexed that a tiny lobby has managed to keep it around basically indefinitely. If I were to build an aerial vehicle that sprayed a toxic substance everywhere it went, the environmental groups would basically go nuts. But somehow because it is in a plane, nothing ever really happens about it.
The logical thing to do with 100LL is to ban it, like was done with passenger fuels. Existing planes serving a public good (basically just bush planes at this point) can continue to operate on it indefinitely. No sales of new planes equipped with engines that operate on 100LL would be allowed either.
- jdhn 5y agoI'm willing to bet that the amount of lead that's put out by aircraft in a year pales in comparison to what was put out by cars, and as a result going after lead emissions from cars was deemed to be the best course of action by the EPA. Also, it's worth noting that leaded gasoline didn't go away overnight. It was still sold for awhile even after the EPA said that you couldn't make cars that ran on leaded gas.
- pc86 5y agoCan you not see how passenger vehicles, which are overwhelmingly for personal use, is a different category with a different economic impact than an entire class of public transportation?
- lmm 5y agoGasoline-engined planes are overwhelmingly for personal use.