Bill Overview
Title: Cleaner, Quieter Airplanes Act
Description: This bill directs the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to establish an initiative to research, develop, and demonstrate new technologies and concepts to reduce emissions and noise from aviation. Emissions to be addressed include carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), water vapor, black carbon, and sulfate aerosols. The goals and objectives of the initiative shall include ensuring U.S. leadership in research and technology innovation leading to substantial reductions in aviation noise and greenhouse gas emissions, a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from new aircraft by at least 50% as compared to the highest-performing aircraft technologies in service as of December 31, 2021, net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft by 2050, and demonstrating new technologies developed pursuant to the initiative on regional aircraft intended to enter into service by 2030 and single-aisle aircraft designed to accommodate more than 125 passengers intended to enter into service by 2040.
Sponsors: Rep. Beyer, Donald S., Jr. [D-VA-8]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by aviation emissions and noise pollution globally
Estimated Size: 350000000
- The bill targets reductions in aviation emissions, which contribute to climate change and air quality issues affecting global populations.
- Improved engine technology to reduce noise levels will impact communities near airports globally, reducing noise pollution.
- Air travel passenger growth is continuous and impacts both passengers and communities living near airports. Any reduction in emissions and noise will directly benefit these groups.
- The bill emphasizes substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, which would positively impact worldwide climate change efforts.
Reasoning
- The policy mostly affects individuals involved in or impacted by the aviation industry, such as those living near airports, working in aviation, or frequently flying.
- Communities near major airports would benefit from decreased noise levels and emissions, potentially improving health outcomes and quality of life.
- People who frequently travel by air might see indirect benefits from improved air travel technologies.
- Research and employment impacts in the aviation technology sector could boost local economies near research facilities or large employers like airlines or aircraft manufacturers.
- The policy may not directly impact people who do not live near airports, do not fly frequently, or are not connected to the aviation industry.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy will lead to cleaner travel options since I fly often for work.
- Living near the airport, any reduction in noise would be fantastic.
- It's great to see the U.S. taking leadership in reducing aviation emissions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Airline Pilot (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could affect my job if the airline needs to invest heavily in new tech and training.
- I'm supportive of reducing emissions but wary of potential job disruptions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Software Engineer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly affected by aviation, but I think it's a positive step for the environment.
- Air travel changes could make me more mindful about choosing sustainable options.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any reduction in plane noise would be a relief.
- I think policies like these are essential for environmental progress and our community.
- Skeptical about the actual year-to-year benefits to noise levels.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Aircraft Mechanic (Newark, NJ)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy may mean more training and new technology at work.
- I welcome the opportunity to work on cutting-edge aviation tech, but worry about job stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Single Parent (Dallas, TX)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I really hope this can improve air quality for my kids' sake.
- Airplane noise can be overwhelming; any reduction would help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Graduate Student (Boulder, CO)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the initiative addresses key environmental concerns.
- Excited to see what new technologies emerge from this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired Engineer (Miami, FL)
Age: 66 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the environment and hope this policy can make a difference.
- Airplane noise is a constant; if this helps reduce it, I'd be thrilled.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Financial Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Important steps towards sustainable aviation could improve business travel quality.
- As someone who flies often, I'm supportive of measures that improve environmental impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Community Organizer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial for public health and environmental protection.
- I believe it can set an example for other countries to follow.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $600000000 (Low: $480000000, High: $720000000)
Year 3: $700000000 (Low: $560000000, High: $840000000)
Year 5: $800000000 (Low: $640000000, High: $960000000)
Year 10: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The aerospace sector is highly regulatory-driven, leading to longer development and approval cycles.
- Stable funding is crucial given the long development horizons and high capital requirements of aerospace technology projects.
- Continued collaboration with international partners is essential to share research findings and integrate developments.