The solutions to environmental problems aren't to grow markets with technology we know is bad so we have the money to make it less bad. The solution is to make it so expensive for the average consumer that it's uneconomical to do the bad thing at all.
Sometimes I think this sort of approach is why so many people on the right are sick of global warming. Sure, global warming is a serious problem, but that doesn't mean that taxing things you don't like is wise, fair, effective, or in any other respect a good idea. If you have a problem with emission of gasses with global warming potential, do that, but please do it across the board.
Let's not specifically tax GA planes, ban gas water heaters, and do a bunch of other random minor-ish things that annoy people and don't actually target the problem.
If you want to ban fueles you just attack people's way of life. If you want to provide the things I list you don't need to ban fuel as they will switch to not driving.
Should car and plane fuel have the same tax level if used as personal transport?
If you decrease the potential market for a product, companies will put less R&D into those products. In the US, general aviation is less popular than horseback riding, which is why we're still using leaded gasoline and piston engines.
Will electric aircraft cross oceans? Probably not. But the batteries are already good enough for useful flights. And you have advantages such as VTOL, quieter operation (allowing you to use urban airports at times when other aircraft are banned due to noise restrictions), and less maintenance.
The cases where I've seen this in use are from island to island (or mainland) - where a boat is much slower and there is no bridge for a car. A useful niche, but not general purpose getting around. There are also a few people who happen to live near (often on) an airport and work near an airport who will fly, but that is also a small niche.
[Avgas consumption in the US is about 200m gallons a year, car fuel consumption some 130,000m gallons. Car plus planes 130,200m. Car -1%, planes x5: 128,700 + 1000 = 129,700m gallons.]
That's a common fallacy.
For example, i could say that the environmental impact of driving in my city is insignificant compared to the total. And that if you reduce emissions in others cities by just 1% in the rest of the world, but my citys emissions increase x5, the environment still come out ahead.
Because otherwise your comment sounds more like hypocrisy.
Pardon? We don't all value human lives? I'm not sure we're having the same conversation if your attitude to pollution is "that's just your opinion"
These things are objectively measurable. I don't even know where to begin, your comment is so odd to read idk if I'm misunderstanding you or what part of climate warming leading to all sorts of issues virtually everywhere, air pollution leading to health issues and premature deaths, the ongoing mass extinction that threatens our food system, etc. you're unaware of
If your company is successful enough for you to invest significant resources into "greener propulsion technology", what is going to happen to all the planes you already sold to get there? Are you going to send an email blast out to all your customers telling them to stop flying now because it's time to pivot to hydrogen planes?
The existence of the a fossil fuel based car market provided an impetus for electric car and battery technology to develop. Similarly, practical alternative energy flight will likely develop faster if there is a market for small, innovative aircrafts.
> to fix it requires capital and public demand.
In my engineering career, one thing I've learned is that if you fix problems B, C, and D, often it becomes a lot easier to fix orthogonal problem A, because the other fixes have made new things possible.
I see what you are doing as fixing a lot of problems with flying, so then more attention can go into making planes quieter and more energy efficient.
Perhaps yours is one of the steps to making planes as peaceful in the environment as birds[0].
Sounds like some wicked variation of Jevon's paradox.
To someone not surrounded by the same aerospace/defence/pentagon welfare state people that you are surrounded by, you come across as very genuine, caring, and hard-working but completely missing the point. Your statements in this thread indicate that you think there maaaaay be an environmental issue but you don’t care because it could never affect you personally. You demonstrate no sense of urgency, which is what the people questioning you are looking for, because that’s what the science shows.
There is also the option of not being part of the problem and finding a different job. Not an option for all employees, full ack on that, but this founder/ceo figure can absolutely make that choice
I see what you mean in that flying will always be something humanity does. We're not going to outlaw it, I have no illusions in that regard. Way too convenient and economically beneficial. Working on making it more accessible when we haven't made it even close to sustainable (with most of the solutions here today, it just needs to be scaled up and rolled out) instead of working on sustainability or alternatives to flying under a pretense of "it'll be better eventually!" is what I object to