Well, they can outlaw operating older private planes. Newer private planes often use kerosene (aka Jet-A) fuel, just like airlines.
But that would be unjust. Imagine your car suddenly gets outlawed.
But that would be unjust. Imagine your car suddenly gets outlawed.
Cessna 172 (trainer plane, not known for efficiency) burns 32 l (8.5 lb) per hour at a cruising speed of 122 knots (140 mph, 226 kph). Assuming no wind, it gives mileage of 14 l / 100 km (16.5 miles per gallon).
Taking into account that there are much less planes than cars, they emit 0.13% of all the CO2, emitted by transportation, comparing to 81% of motor vehicles (623 times less) [1]. So I would say their lead emissions are too low to bother (and mostly harm their owners who are close to the exhausts). Would be nicer, of course, to use unleaded, but not a big deal to lobby for legislations.
[1] https://communicatescience.com/zoonomian/tag/cessna-172/
The difference is that new gasoline planes can work with unleaded.
Cash for clunkers sort of thing.
You could argue those buying new cars bought clunkers from the working poor for their above-market trade-in value, but that only works for the poor if they didn’t need to replace that clunker because everything used went up in price.
You are underinformed. Most Cessna owners I know, are middle-income fanatics, usually co-owning a single plane.
In US you can get a license for as low as $8k total. In expensive California, expensive SF Bay Area cost is around $15k total.
You're saying that amateur making six figures cannot find $15k for something they basically live for? Sounds very unlikely.
Btw, there's no cost of using airport runway, it's paid from your taxes.