Legislation introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday would establish a tax credit for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Called the Sustainable Skies Act, the bill would provide between $1.50 and $2.00 per each gallon of SAF used as long as the fuel “achieves at least a 50 percent lifecycle greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions reduction in comparison with petroleum-based jet fuel.” If the legislation is enacted, the SAF credit would be available through the end of the decade.
“The Sustainable Skies Act will help spur the private sector investments needed to boost the production, distribution and uptake of SAF,” said General Aviation Manufactures Association (GAMA) CEO Pete Bunce. “A blender’s tax credit will also assist in making SAF a cost-competitive alternative to conventional jet fuel.”
The bill (PDF) was introduced by Representatives Brad Schneider, D-Ill., Dan Kildee, D-Mich., and Julia Brownley, D-Calif. Organizations and companies including Airbus, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), American Airlines, Boeing, Delta, FedEx, GAMA, the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), Pratt & Whitney, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines have already voiced their support. Companion legislation is expected to be introduced in the Senate in the next few days.
So now the taxpayers are going to subsidize jet fuel, to the tune of $2 per gallon?
This is INSANE, woke BS. But I’m being redundant.
I always love your comments, YARS!
My natural inclination is to ask, “How can we afford this?” But I think I already see it coming…..user fees.
We are swimming in oil.
They want to destroy plants to feed jets?
Wow. What a great idea. Why not just have the government pay for all of our fuel, planes and cars as long as it’s green. Just keep printing money. I love free stuff.
Funny and not funny.
Oil is cheap and plentiful. Much of the expense of oil is artificial/governmental in the form of taxes and unnecessary regulation.
This is not complicated.
Burn oil, eat food.
Why is this so hard for the liberals to understand?
The global climate is changing dramatically, rapidly and disastrously due primarily to burning oil and coal. So we need to stop doing it as quickly as possible.
Why is that so hard for some people to understand?!
Its not hard to understand. Some people just don’t believe it, some people argue it does not exist and some people just flat do not care. Yelling about it changes no ones mind. Do what you want that makes you feel you are making a difference and lower your expectations for everyone else.
Thank you, Chicken Little.
For the past 60 years, I’ve continuously been told that our planet has only 10 years left.
In God we trust. All others, bring evidence.
Tim, since that atmosphere has not warmed, the theory of man released co2 catching heat in the atmosphere first and then keeping the surface warmer is obviously incorrect.
What is hard to understand are people clinging to a theory that the data has not supported.
mmkay Tim I see you have bought into the rhetoric. Understand that global warming is a catch phrase that has been around for decades, as long a I can remember maybe 40+ years back. Every time California burns the media tell us it’s global warming and then push some green agenda. California burns because it’s hot and dry, not because of a .2 degree temperature variation from 10 years ago. It is not the emergency they would make it out to be where you need to get rid of your SUV, stop flying planes and get a bicycle because we know you don’t really care that much anyway, you are just virtue signaling. When you buy into this malarky (and push the agenda like you just did here), you are making flying an elitist sport because rich people aren’t going to stop doing anything but you’re going to get priced out for certain when you let this stuff pass. You’re kinda dumb if they convinced you it was good for the planet. Um stuff is still burning Tim – SAF or not. I assure you the planet will be here millions of years after we are gone. Remember this formula .. manufacture a crisis, exploit the fear mongering, profit. now you are ready to be a politician pushing the new green bad-deal.
It takes a bigger leap of faith to believe Big Government and Global Warming conspiracists than to believe in God. I say this as a Rutgers/Yale/Stanford educated physician, not a mental pigmy. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Global Warming Religion worries me not at all.
Western farming practices are driving climate change…not one’s Bonanza or SUV. Western farming practices have evolved from consumer demand for animal products and processed foods. 97% of the land American farms work produce corn, soybeans, and wheat. Those three staples of current farm production feed livestock…which is turned into meat products and processed foods. We don’t have an agricultural system that primarily produces fruits and vegetables for human consumption. US citizens demand meat products and processed foods. It takes vast amounts of cleared land to provide the food supply for livestock production.
Emerging and third world countries have adopted our western form of eating and the agriculture required to produce it. This combination of vast land clearing combined with the normal emission produced by animals and humans just to eat and breathe is driving climate change. Do ya think a 2,000 pound steer uses up a little more O2 and emits more CO2 than a 200 lb human? Do ya think a 1-2000 pound steer eats a little more than a 200 pound human? To make conventional farming reasonably profitable, the US government subsidizes corn, wheat, and soybean prices. Nothing new here with subsidizing SAF. That is why meat is very cheap regarding consumer prices vs the actual cost of production. Most would not be eating meat and processed foods three or more times a day if we had to actually pay the full amount that production of these products requires.
It’s not popular to suggest the US eating habits, now almost universally sought by every other country, is the elephant in the room vs fossil fuel use. So, blame climate change on something other than our food desires. We are addicted to our food choices.
Our food choices are not ecologically sustainable. Now we are adding to this finite amount of agricultural real estate, the demands for SAF fuels. Somebody will have to pay for this land use that already cannot meet current demands for animal products and processed foods. In spite of our farming practices, we cannot meet the current demand for animal products and processed foods. Therefor, we import meat.
So, we the taxpayer will subsidize the manufacture of SAF just as we subsidize food production for livestock and processed foods. Incidentally, when ever these eating habits dominate, which requires western farming practices to sustain, the same diseases plaguing the US population explodes in those countries that do likewise. Ecologically, they face the same repercussions regionally.
There are reasons why there are no ethanol plants in Oklahoma but many in Illinois. The beef industry dominates the lobbying influence in Congress and Oklahoma. The corn producers have the strongest lobbying influences in Illinois and Congress.
My airplane, even when burning 100LL, is not the driver of climate change. Nor is my car or diesel truck. Nor is airliners, ships, trains, volcano eruptions, and all the combined conveyances including coal fired plants including fossil fuel powered manufacturing, etc. Its what we collectively put on our forks. Not politically correct, not a stance popular with the average consumer, US or otherwise. But scientifically, statistically, and easily proven with decades of compiled data.
Global government is controlled by the strongest financial lobbyists. And those lobbyists also influence information, studies, and tell us what to believe. Believe what you want. However, the factual science is not hard to find to make an intelligent decision. Climate change it is not coming from fossil fuel use. The lack of health is not coming the lack of prescriptions.
I just got done reading this whole thread. I’m glad I don’t have a loaded gun close to me because I’d probably shoot myself.
Outstanding post Jim.
Very correct and informative.
Sadly it does not fit the governments agenda.
To what you said I will emphasize the true and immediate harm to people eating meat and a western diet. The chances of your cheeseburger killing you are a lot higher than the 0.001% temperature change attributable to AGW and the zillionth of a present attributable to GA
Also it’s cruel to kill animals to feed our collective gluttony.
Yes I can say this I’m vegan.
As others have mentioned, there is a whole lot more to the climate change issue that can be solved by changing our aircraft fuel source. For one thing, in order to produce a SAF, you have to have a reliable source of your raw materials. There are two ways to make synthetic jet fuel, one requires large amounts of farm land to produce the soybeans. The other uses animal fat from slaughter houses and waste cooking oils from fast food joints as their feedstock. While both may be “sustainable”, neither is very environmentally friendly, and are hardly net-zero on carbon emissions. The waste oil process produces a far superior jet fuel that can be used at full concentration (I.e. No blending required). The soybean process makes a jet-like liquid that has to be diluted into petroleum jet to minimize its undesirable side effects. Unfortunately, the waste oil process has a limited source of feedstock, so its ability to replace significant volumes of petroleum jet is very limited. Soybean “jet” can be produced in much larger quantities, but requires equal amounts of that nasty petroleum product in order to work at high altitude. The ironic part is that the ones who benefit the most from this policy are the oil refineries. They are the ones who developed the waste oil process, and they are the ones who produce the petroleum jet to dilute the soybean “jet”. Either way, it’s a win-win for the oil industry. Oh, and by the way, none of this has anything to do with those of us that use 100LL.