Moving the conversation in a different direction, does anybody know what 1 litre of AvGas outputs in C02 in grams and also what the present amount of money it would cost to negate this with tree planting schemes (or more efficiently, the cheapest present way to remove the C02). Timothy came up with some rough figure in another thread, but it would be good to have more detail.
If Government is going to intervene it should have a duty of care not to completely damage the economy.
A figure like this would compare and contrast the real environmental cost compared to this patently “Political” proposal of CHF500.
BArcher-181 wrote:
1 litre of AvGas outputs in C02 in grams
About 2.4 kg if it’s “perfectly burned”. If we fly on the rich side of mixture, one can assume about 2kg/l.
If one can effectively offset any emission, is, however, a totally different discussion. There’s litte to no real academic facts that prove or disprove the point that avoiding 100g emission every year for the next 10 years really compensate the effect of emitting 1kg now.
(explicitly not saying, that it doesn’t – we just don’t know if we are honest. If you are hungry now, it does not help a lot if you plan to eat 30gr. of steak every Feb 1st for the next 10 years…)
Therefore it is simply impossible to calculate something like “real environmental cost” – however, it’s very safe to say that these CHF500 have nothing to do with real cost but are intended to shut down small GA altogether…
Malibuflyer wrote:
it’s very safe to say that these CHF500 have nothing to do with real cost but are intended to shut down small GA altogether…
No, its a “punish the perceived rich” tax. This kind of thing has become very popular in certain European countries.
Thank you @Malibuflyer very interesting. Of course one could make the rule that the carbon offset had to be withing 12 months. Then you would (for example) have to plant a load more trees (like 10 times the amount) but could use of sell the amounts saved in year 2, 3 etc.
I recently saw a very interesting video by a respected scientist where he pointed out that it is only in the West we have all of this guilt/ doom and gloom/ quasi religious outlook. Probably caused because people are too cozy. In other parts of the world there is much more optimism that technology will fix C02 emissions.
What it looks like is that this is a half baked proposal by someone who has no idea how aviation works. Not just GA but generally. It starts with politicians wanting to stop people from flying commercial and therefore put huge ticket taxes on each flight. The consequences of that are frightening particularly in Switzerland, where the largest two carriers belong to a foreign carrier based in Germany. The ticket tax came up because some politicians found out that commercial traffic is exempt from petrol tax.
Minders proposal was based on the usual antipathy against biz jets which are regarded as spoils to the evil rich people. However, there is a certain logic behind that, as if as it looks like now any airline pax would have to pay 130 CHF per ticket that pax on biz jets should pay something similar. The idea of a flat tax for all ga is the half baked part of it. But it can be expected that parliament will primarily see the “injustice” of biz jet pax without tickets and therefore almost certainly retain the private flight fee.
As however most GA is paying petrol tax, the current strategy goes into the direction of making parlamentarians aware of the fact that any GA paying this tax should be exempt from the ticket tax. There are hickups however, as e.g. training flights to outside the country which are now also exempt would either have to pay tax in the future or the ticket tax. Equally, the question is what happens with club flights which also issue tickets for small round trips e.t.c.
I reckon there may be a good chance that the argument for an exemption from the tax for flights which pay the full petrol tax (including a CO2 addition which is part of the package also for cars of about CHF0.12 per liter) may be achieved either on legislative level or later on in executive level (where the law’s execution has to be determined by the federal council (or rather lawyers in their departments). This dos not solve the problem however for a large extent of club, parashute and air taxi companies. Long way to go but at least there is a shimmer of light at the end of this particular bottomless pit.
Silvaire wrote:
The FAA AIM is not law, just information. ICAO is not something US pilots need concern themselves with.
I’m not claiming either. But you implied (by reference to a FAA web site) that the acronym PPR isn’t officially used by the FAA, while clearly it is.
What I said was “ICAO recommendations are not applicable as law at any airport, they are just an international body with no direct authority”. As a result ICAO does not have direct authority over any airport, anywhere as far as I know.
What I meant to imply as an extension of that was that very few US pilots would (1) know what ICAO means or care (2) know what the acronym “PPR” means or care or (3) use anything but the terms used on an FAA chart (i.e. legally required data, not advisory info) to describe airport classifications – and that does not include “PPR”… Long may it remain so.
The term listed on flight mandatory FAA charts to describe an airport requiring invitation is “Private”. “PPR” as I understand it means “Prior Permission Required” and while the meaning of those three English words as a phrase is clear, “PPR” is not an FAA Airport related acronym or abbreviation that appears in FAA airport standards.
Why is paying for planting trees believed to balance CO2 production?
Do trees do more photosynthesis than intensively grown crops?
Is there anywhere suitable for tree growth with bare soil, ready to use?
Burning fossil fuels in the service of celebrities seems to be universally accepted by the news media as not producing CO2.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I’m not claiming either. But you implied (by reference to a FAA web site) that the acronym PPR isn’t officially used by the FAA, while clearly it is.
I fail to see the relation to ICAO as well. For public airports, especially international ones, I would think ICAO is used as reference, but non public? It may be just a field of grass, it may be a military airport. It’s the same with aircraft, only civilian certified aircraft have any relation to ICAO.
LeSving wrote:
I fail to see the relation to ICAO as well
I think you are missing the point. The point is that PPR is an official abbreviation and that it means “Prior Permission Required” and nothing else.
