Can't upvote this enough. This is going to kill small operators that might not be able to comply. Why not just let the leaded fuel users die from attrition naturally?
"Regulations are the only way to solve market externalities" is not the same statement as "All regulations solve market externalities".
The market can never solve market externalities, by definition.
The vast majority of regulations don't work. At least not if your definition of "work" is to actually solve market externalities. But they're great for job security for regulators and politicians.
> The market can never solve market externalities, by definition.
This is not correct. Markets can solve externalities, through market transactions that shift ownership so that the externalities are internalized. The main thing preventing this is government regulation that raises transaction costs so that the necessary adjustments cannot be made. This has been known at least since Ronald Coase published his famous theorem.
In other words, government regulators prevent markets from solving externalities, and then complain that markets can't solve externalities so government regulators have to step in.
It's true that there are cases where there are no market transactions that can internalize an externality. But in those cases, regulation can't solve them either; there are no solutions for such cases. Welcome to the real world.
While this is often true, that doesn't mean it's actually an improvement.
Anyone commercial already has to go in for 100hr inspections all the damn time. The STC is unlikely to cost much relative to that, nor to add much additional hassle.
Anyone private can deal with it, they own their own plane and knew it wasn’t going to be a cheap hobby going in.
G100UL will cost a bit more than 100LL but it seems likely this will change a bit as it becomes more widely used.
I guess it puts people operating midcentury radials that haven’t yet been certified for G100UL in a weird spot.
>Will I have to modify my engine or aircraft to use G100UL avgas?
>Other than placards, no modifications are required. A small placard is attached to the engine and "stick-on" placards are applied to refueling ports. In addition, there is a short POH supplement added to the AFMS.
Operating a plane is a privilege, not a right.
Oh, we aren't talking about tire dust? Never mind.
Unlike lead, we've only recently had the technology to measure and quantify tire wear pollution. For example, we didn't realize until 2020 that 6PPD - already toxic to many aquatic organisms - can oxidize become 6PPD-quinone, which is acutely toxic to coho salmon and some other fish species. This solved a 20 year old mystery of so many coho salmon died after a rain storm.
That's why the California Environmental Protection Agency has passed a rule requiring tire makers to declare an alternative by 2024. https://dtsc.ca.gov/scp/motor_vehicle_tires_containing_6ppd/
That's in addition to the particulate pollution from tire wear. ("Research from Emissions Analytics shows that particulate mass emissions from tire wear is thousands of times greater than those from tailpipes, which have been vastly reduced in recent years by high-efficiency exhaust filters." - https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/16/world/tyre-collective-mic... ).
We of course need to regulate them better because electric cars are heavier, so tire particulate pollution is expected to increase over the next few years.
There's also brake pad pollution, like the EPA's Copper-Free Brake Initiative to remove copper, "mercury, lead, cadmium, asbestiform fibers, and chromium-six salts in motor vehicle brake pads." https://www.epa.gov/npdes/copper-free-brake-initiative . That's a voluntary program, but California and Washington have mandatory requirements.
I trust that you support these efforts to reduce car pollution, and are not simply using the lack of discussion about them in this thread in order to score internet points for implied hypocrisy?
Both tires and brakes have the advantage that they are replaced every few years/decade, so regulations can target manufacturers. An aircraft engine can have decades of life, so any costs of switching away from leaded fuel are felt directly by the owner.
They’ve also been known as a class as a problem (along with catalytic converter particles) for well over 30 years.
There have been multiple studies linking proximity to freeways with asthma and decreased life span, serious health issues like COPD, and even significant increases in sudden unexplained deaths.
45 million Americans live within the high risk zones (300 feet or meters, I forget), countless new daycares, old folks homes, and residential high rises get built there every day, and almost every American is exposed significantly due to being in vehicles on average of an hour a day with insufficient filtering.
[https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-11/documents/42...]
The issue here isn’t that aircraft engines last ‘decades’.
It’s that aircraft owners are only legally allowed to use fuels approved by the FAA for their aircraft, and per the various authorizations for their aircraft. Which vary. The engines may get rebuilt, but without a very expensive type change and approval (often from the manufacturer) they’re the same design as the original. Which has the same limitations.
So until there is a viable authorized replacement (per the FAA), literally they can’t use it except in emergencies. Which only just became available. And they can’t change engines either. And they can’t just YOLO it legally.
Because fuel is a major cause of crashes that kill people already (usually contamination, or wrong fuel causing engine failures/flameouts).
And despite the FAA knowing of the risks of lead (or more precisely, knowing the various factors), they only recently did authorize a replacement.
So it’s as if that study on those plastics happened 30 years ago, and we’re just now getting around to it. Which essentially is what has happened with cars and the various pollution.
So raking anyone over the coals when a far larger, more damaging, and widespread crisis has always been going on for even longer and gets ignored? Yeah I’m pointing out the hypocrisy.
It’s always about resources in proportion to risk, and arguably the FAA has dumped far more resources and mitigated a far less damaging risk (in many concrete ways) far faster with this leaded fuel issue than one near and dear all of us.
Which also drives the call to reduce car use, wherein someone is also likely to point out that driving is not a right but a privilege.
> So it’s as if that study on those plastics happened 30 years ago, and we’re just now getting around to it. Which essentially is what has happened with cars and the various pollution.
Yes. And lead wasn't banned for interior paint until decades after some other countries. The US regulatory system is strongly weighted in favor of business over health and environment.
> raking anyone over the coals
As if! This is finding. The EPA must then "propose and promulgate emission standards", which the FAA must then turn into regulations.
It sets no deadlines, it makes no policy changes other than for the EPA and FAA.
I suspect it will take years before the first regulations appear, and with years to allow a changeover.
Like small planes are spewing lead over everywhere they’re flying. I’m glad this is happening.
I don’t really care about small operators vs the health of everyone else, and especially kids in the case of lead.