Piper Cherokee Six

Piper Cherokee Six
These aircraft MUST use 100 Octane Low Lead fuel

Sunday, April 18, 2010

AOPA Comments from 2009 to EPA



The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed to find that six greenhouse gases—including some emitted by general aviation aircraft—threaten public health and welfare. The agency did not propose any regulations on emitters of greenhouse gases, but the finding could be a preliminary step toward the eventual regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, including those from engines.
AOPA will file comments on the proposed finding and has commented on the issue in the past.
“Piston-powered aircraft account for approximately one-tenth of 1 percent of transportation greenhouse gas emissions,” said Craig Spence, AOPA vice president of regulatory affairs. Spence added that AOPA “will continue to urge the EPA to consider the cost burden and effect on aviation safety before imposing any emissions rules on the GA community.”
The proposed findings, published in the Federal Register April 24, could lay the groundwork for regulations similar to the ones that the agency explored last year in anadvanced notice of proposed rulemaking. The notice seeks ways to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from many sources, including aircraft, under the Clean Air Act.
For any of those rules to be enacted, the EPA must first rule that the air pollutants in question “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”—a stipulation of the Clean Air Act that the Supreme Court ruled applies to greenhouse gases. As emitters of carbon dioxide, GA aircraft could eventually fall under the purview of EPA regulations under the Clean Air Act.
The proposed endangerment finding is based on scientific analysis of six gases, including carbon dioxide. According to the EPA, concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and those high levels likely contribute to climate change. The draft now enters the 60-day public comment period.
Legislative action could open another avenue for the oversight of greenhouse gas emissions. President Barack Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address the issue of greenhouse gases.
April 29, 2009

2 comments:

Paul Mills said...

Those of us in the GA community have heard rumors of the elimination of leaded fuels over the past two decades.

Futurists have glowingly filled our imaginations with perpetual motion machinery, and marvelous modern developments ushering in the co-existence of man and nature unified in a bond of mutual respect and cooperation.

As a young boy, I can recall predictions of what the world would be like in that distant time of the year 2000 A.D.,and the turn into a new century.

Unquestionably, mankind has progressed, however, it is humoring to see how far we stand from some of those predictions.

I'm sure futurists in the 1950's looked at advancement and opportunities awaiting us from a purely functional prospective.
They, in all likelihood, had little perception into influencing factors that could propel, prohibit or forestall man's progress: enter the special interest group.

This has,indeed, become one of modern man's greatest achievements, where a relatively small and concentrated group of individuals are able to voice their opinion, obtain support through statistics, gather endorsements from noted scientists and academicians: and CONTROL. Control people, control economies, livelihoods, prosperity, and personal environment.

While the majority of people let it all happen, and suffer the consequences, later.

I question the wisdom taken by the "Friends of the Earth" special interest group?

We know that at this given time there are no viable substitutes for lead in AvGas.
There are no viable alternatives to replace AvGas.
As a matter of fact, there is no delivery system in existence that can provide the volume we will need to replace Avgas. And it is extremely unlikely there will be an alternative available by the 2015~2016 proposed cancellation of AvGas production.

The people of Alaska will suffer. Villages will become ghost towns, and Alaskans will be forced to concentrate and adapt to city life in the state. Village life will be lost.

So, what about the "carbon footprint" of AvGas.
What does it account for?
Is it significant?
Is it creating irreparable harm?
What is the proof to back any claims?
Is it wise to set a date for it's elimination with no alternatives available?

We all what to be good stewards of the earth, however, we have been waving the banner of conservation since the days of Teddy Roosevelt, and how much progress have we made?

Progress is people working together to arrive at viable solutions serving for the betterment of all men without loss of freedom and opportunity for all!

Rob Stapleton, Jr. said...

Well put Paul. Thant's what we are striving for, a solution workable for all, not a ban as a conclusion brought about by the attorneys of a special interest group who forced the EPA into this.