[flagged]
And I'm in that camp of unscientific people who figure a 23 old truck (specifically using unleaded fuel) that doesn't need to be rebuilt anew is actually kinder to the earth than the alternative.
Since the people who fly the largest private planes openly demand I stop driving my old pickup, I make the much more moderate demand that their airplanes meet each and every single emissions and fuel economy requirement that my old pickup has had to meet to stay on the road all these years.
I 100% support grounding all civilian air travel, world wide. I would give them the same time I would have if my old pickup failed an inspection to come up to standards, or their planes would be scrapped. Good luck to them getting catalytic converters on jet engines.
Citation needed. Did you actually experience this, or is this a hypothetical?
I do not know why pilots would be giving you a hard time with a truck given that most general aviation aircraft in operation are older than your truck.
What I have seen is people driving brand new trucks calling all GA aircraft a 'rich person's toy' even when they cost much less than their shiny trucks.
> banning all civilian air travel
If we calculate fuel economy per mile, planes do pretty good for long trips. Planes are (obviously) very aerodynamic and light. Getting up to altitude takes a lot of fuel but, once there, they sip fuel. Mind you that there are general aviation planes running with standard gasoline that are most likely more efficient than a 23 year old trucks and, most likely, even more efficient than new trucks, once you consider the speed they travel at and how light and aerodynamic they are compared to a truck.
And, since you said All civilian air travel, that includes airliners. Now we are talking efficiency per set per mile. The numbers are actually pretty good; you can look them up.
All that said, can we, collectively, stop antagonizing people that live a different lifestyle than we do, for no reason?
> Citation needed. Did you actually experience this, or is this a hypothetical?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/08/20...
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/global-warming...
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/09/26/sick-do-as...
> All that said, can we, collectively, stop antagonizing people that live a different lifestyle than we do, for no reason?
That's up to those who fly and demand I stop driving.
The airframe likely is older than the truck, but the engine is usually considerably newer. GA aircraft engines require overhauls or replacement be done every 1200-2000 hours of run time.
Rotax has some newer designs that are fuel injected, have modern piston head designs, and sometimes have turbochargers, and those represent what a "new" aircraft engine looks like.
Also old pickup trucks rock. =)
If we're to be at all serious about this being an existential threat to humanity, then personal air travel is an easy win in reducing emissions.
Additionally, its not really a massive win. Air traffic only makes up 8% of less than 30% of American emissions. Cars, on the other hand, make up more than 75% of that same 30%[0]. Switching to aircraft might actually make more sense for the environment.
[0] https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-...
But here in Canada our carbon tax is facing strong opposition from populists, and I expect that the next Government is likely to axe it. The current Government is already putting in place boutique exclusions; for instance, home heating fuel is excluded for the next three years. As an alternative, to discourage a major common form of driving, we should consider ways in which to make businesses find operating office space impossibly expensive.
Maybe we could have some kind of a permitting system where you could apply for permission to travel to see, for instance, your dying parent. But you would need to submit a letter from a doctor stating they are likely to die in the next 7-14 days, of course.
How about a ban on recreational activities like hiking and skiing? If we’re serious about this being an existential threat, this should be an easy decision.
Maybe a ban on human existence altogether.
Jets are different - they go a lot faster. Commercial jets when full are about the same as a small car. Private jets generally have much less people on board, if you filled them to capacity with people they do well.
A cessna 172 burns 8 gallons an hour in cruise at 125 mph. A generic sedan at 30mpg burns 2 gallons an hour at 60mph on the highway.
The calculations do not work for small planes. The energy to go double the speed is not double the energy.
There are other demographic categories of people who are far more likely to demand you stop driving that pickup.
So, for instance, Elon Musk's private jet is estimated to have emitted 2,112 tons in 2022. Elon would have to pay a $400,000 carbon tax.
Ideally these taxes would flow through fuel, but that presents some challenges, since planes can re-fuel in jurisdictions without those taxes, although that's certainly harder to do in the United States. I think in the US, it might be hard enough to do that that just taxing the aviation fuel is fine.
Now a lead tax might be something to think about if the non-leaded fuel costs more for some reason, lead being more of a concern than carbon in this instance. Tax the lead to make it the more expensive option.
Leaded avgas is coming from piston-engine aircraft, and I don't think that was really what OP was talking about when commenting about the people flying private aircraft while publicly demanding people stop driving pickup trucks.
For leaded gas, we can simply ban the leaded gas, as the cost of performance in piston-engine aircraft. I'm not really an expert, but at a first glance I see no particularly compelling reason not to do it, so I'm not opposed to that at all.