Originally published at: U.S. Expected to Object to an ICAO SAF Policy - AVweb
American corn growers seen to be at a market disadvantage.
" The order, intended to protect American economic interest in international environmental deals, states: âThe United States must grow its economy and maintain jobs for its citizens while playing a leadership role in global efforts to protect the environment.
When âplaying a leadership role in global efforts to protect the environmentâ becomes âprotecting American economic interest in environmental dealsâ itâs called transmogrification - or, yâall just too obtuse to see what weâre up to.
Stay sharp, Brazil.
1 Like
The US should ban the use of SAF and ethanol, as they are both fully dependent on government coercion and subsidies. Grain should be used for food and feed, not for fuel. Our policy should be to frack and drill everywhere to lower the cost of fossil fuels, the best by far for aviation.
SAF and ethanol have always had everything to do with protecting the corn growers and nothing to do with protecting the environment.
1 Like
True. And what about protecting fossil fuel interests??? Why should taxpayers pay the tab for that?
1 Like
⌠says the spastic patella who grew up with the benefits of other such government coercions as rural electrification, clean water, compulsory education, FDIC, SBA loans, MMR vaccine research, subsidized college education, and cheap gas that was fracked nowhere near him.
So itâs not surprising that he would espouse accelerating the depletion of a non-renewable resource over a sustainable one that doesnât yet have the benefit of 160 years of development for aviation.
Read some real economics, for instance the meaning of âlost opportunity costsâ, why the private sector is ALWAYS superior to a so-called âgovernment solutionâ. How many times since the 50s have we been told that our fossil fuels are near depletion, only to have smart Americans figure out ways to increase yields and lower costs? Read Alex Epsteinâs âFossil Futureâ.
You actually make my point on the folly of depending on government aid or coercion to advance a technology for which no market exists. In this case, using food to make a bio fuel to save the planet from a non-existent problem, the myth that plant food (Co2) is a hazard to our environment. Rural electrification - worked well and cheap before government meddling. Clean water - exists since Biblical times. Compulsory education - our country had a 99% literacy rate before the government got involved; now we rank far down in the world in government school results but tops in spending on these failed schools. Subsidized college has exploded its costs - I paid about $700 for my final year of undergraduate studies at Auburn in 1979, and got a better education than today, worked my way through college. FDIC? A Ponzi scheme. SBA loans? A source of widespread corruption - best is to live and work debt free. Cheap gas is thanks to God and brilliant American engineers who invented oil refining, transport, fracking and directional drilling - despite government meddling. âLiberty is always freedom from the government.â Ludwig von Mises
It is highly I will pay ANY attention to ANY of your comments in the future, Kent. While you seem to offer some reasonably thought out contributions to the conversation, you seem to think that we want to hear your rants about anything and everything that have nothing to do with the topic. There is freedom of speech, and thereâs also freedom to not listen to anything like what you say.
1 Like
Hi Chuck. My original comments were very much on topic - we should not use food / feed as fuel. Aviatrexx responded in the usual fashion among the ignorant by name-calling. He backed up his disagreement with supposed examples how government meddling supposedly helps industry, to which I strongly disagree. In my nearly 50 years engineering experience I have worked in the energy and aviation industries, and used to write a column (for GA News) on fuels and powerplants for aircraft. I know what I am talking about. A forum is a place to exchange ideas, and everyone has a right to his opnion, and a right to being offended by other comments. Back to topic - bake bread from grain, get aviation fuel from Dinosaurs.
âAviatrexx responded in the usual fashion among the ignorant by name-calling.â
Priceless.
âAnd what about protecting fossil fuel interests??? Why should taxpayers pay the tab for that?â
According to the International Monetary Fund, in 2023 federal subsidies to the fossil fuel industry was $757 billion, while in that same year the oil and gas industry earned over $2.6 trillion. Weâve spent over two trillion dollars in subsidies to drug companies, oil companies, gas companies and agriculture in recent years.
It has always been Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor. Always. We now have a system inferring the rich are too poor and the poor too rich.
Your federal government is in the hands of a philistine conman. As the world develops and progresses toward greater sustainability in all areas including aviation fuels, the US resists - and unknowingly creates an unnecessary suspension of American exceptionalism, which is now held in thought only as merely a fleeting construct.
Strange times.
In practice, ethanol is soil mining, which isnât really sustainableâŚ
1 Like
It is highly I will pay ANY attention to ANY of your comments in the future,
If you read the userâs guide, youâll come across Muting or Ignoring Other Forum Users.
Youâre welcome.
Unfortunately, all the current SAF efforts to replace the current petroleum fuels used in aircraft are all green washing and a wasted effort because they will all create more damage to the environment than just continuing on with the petroleum fuel that is already in use.
It was thought that corn ethanol would be better for the environment than the product it was to replace, but studies have found that is not the case. It is actually worse for the environment.
The same thing is happening all over again and once the studies come in, they will show that the SAF alternate fuels will also be worse for the environment than just continuing with the petroleum fuel now available.
Currently the best efforts will be to improve efficiency.
Possibly in the future with better batteries, such as solid-state batteries there might be some possibilities to reduce the environmental damage that can be caused by operating an aircraft.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.