Communities near Paine Field in Everett suffer from some of the worst air quality in the state. Sen. Marko Liias grew up nearby in a neighborhood overburdened by pollution. This experience was, in part, the motivation behind the 21st District Democrat’s sponsorship of Senate Bill 6114, which cleared the Senate Transportation Committee Monday.
According to a news release from Liias’ office, the bill requires airport operators to make sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) blends available to noncommercial, private jet owners with the goal of ultimately having all jet owners in Washington use this renewable fuel. To qualify, fuel blends must include a minimum of 10 percent SAF. The Department of Ecology will determine timelines of a full transition to sustainable fuel based on its availability.
“The detrimental impacts of air pollution are crystal clear in higher rates of asthma and an increased risk of stroke, lung cancer and other serious ailments,” said Liias, who represents portions of Edmonds and Lynnwood. “Requiring sustainable, renewable fuels for private jets is one way to help reverse these risks for future generations while also reducing our carbon footprint.”
According to data from the Port of Seattle, replacing fossil fuels with sustainable fuel will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by between 50 and 80 percent.
SB 6114 is the latest effort by Senate Democrats to address air pollution through sustainable aviation fuel, the news release said. Senate Majority Leader Andy Billig in 2023 sponsored and passed SB 5447, encouraging the purchase and manufacture of aviation biofuels through tax incentives in an effort to help position Washington as a leader in this developing sector of the green economy.
“Snohomish County is the global heart of aerospace manufacturing, which has been an important economic driver of the county for over 50 years,” Snohomish County Executive Dave Somers said. “The continued success of aviation – and our economy more broadly – relies on transitioning to cleaner, more sustainable lines of business. Sen. Liias has been a champion for sustainable aviation fuels, and I am grateful for his continued efforts to help decarbonize aviation.”
This article would indicate the real carbon footprint of biofuels is 1.8 times greater than existing fossil fuels. Not against biofuels but I hate to be lied to.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/biofuels-aviation-carbon-emissions#:~:text=Although%20direct%20emissions%20from%20biofuel,that%20figure%20is%2075.1g.
Personally, I find determining the carbon footprint of products and activities difficult to follow. For this reason I am skeptical of relying on any one source for information. For me it takes a lot of time to investigate about carbon footprints. The Wire, referenced by Mr Fairchild, has some interesting points. Then again the US Department of Energy site offers other numbers that underscore the benefits of biofuels that Senate Bill 6114 would bring to Washingtonians,.
Biofuels & Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Myths versus Facts
Department of Energy (.gov)
https://www.energy.gov › articles › httpwwwdo…
I poked around a little more and even look at the department of energy which pretty much said the same thing. Their caveat was that methods are getting better and who knows maybe one day it will be a break even source or better. You know like when all the farm equipment and trucks are electric and the energy source to produce it isn’t from coal or gas.. I just don’t understand why the government would mandate the use when we are in a emergency crisis and as nick would say every little bit helps. If the bill passes at least for some time to come the overall carbon footprint is actually higher so it is actually a negative currently. Even according to the department of energy. Like I said not against biofuels but I don’t like being told they are so much better when in reality they are worse.
They need to use a different source than palm oil which is driving deforestation in the Amazon.
I’d like to see improvements in the fuels used by private smaller aircraft flying out of PAE as well but not at the expense of further destruction of oxygen producing forest worldwide.
And what is the monetary impact to the consumers? What will the legislation cost in increase monies to state agencies (taxes) and in cost increases passed on to the consumer. How much benefit is actually achieved? Some honesty by the salesman (legislators) would be helpful.
It is a curious position to not be against an item that makes our condition on the planet worse.
Most studies that I have read, and these are not exhaustive on the subject, maintain that biofuels when burned produce fewer particulates and toxins. They are biodegradable and if spilled break down to harmless suibstances. If blended with petroleum they produce lower emissions, burn cleaner and at higher octane.
All this sounds great, but there are downsides as well.. Getting back to carbon footprints, studies that attempt to compare gasoline, what it takes in energy to extract, refine and deliver, to the energy it takes to grow, harvest, process and deliver biofuel are complicated. I often find them tedious and difficult to follow.
I suppose State Sen Liias could give us an idea if Bill 6114 will cost the taxpayer more than if the bill did not exist. If someone would find out and let me know, I would appreciate it.