Let's talk about how much fuel it takes to get an airliner from Point A to Point B. You want to climb above the weather (30,000 ft. or more), you want to haul enough passengers and their stuff to pay the cost of doing business, the airplane, the crew, the maintenance, the insurance, and all the rest of what makes a business run and an airplane fly.

What are you going to use to make this happen? Jet-A1 (or JP-4 or Kerosene, or diesel, or whatever other petrochemical compound) with a sufficient energy density to lift its own weight plus the mass of the airplane and payload and keep it aloft until Point B is reached (with a significant fuel reserve because **** happens).

You want electric airplanes that will do the same thing? Not likely. The energy density of the most powerful battery bank is still nowhere near sufficient enough to allow an airplane (even Light Sport Aircraft) to take off, climb to altitude, cruise for long distance and carry anything but batteries..

Yes, battery technology is improving, and quickly. But the actual laws of physics take over and determine the maximum output and duration of every chemical battery.

"$200,000 worth of Tesla batteries, which collectively weigh over 20,000 pounds, are needed to store the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil." (from the Manhattan Institute study on the economic cost of "Green Energy."

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...ear-impossible

As soaring pilots, we recognize, appreciate, analyze and utilize "free" atmospheric energy. But we also recognize the limitations of our technology when the energy suddenly (or gradually) diminishes or disappears. Trying to legislate and force an unreliable and wildly expensive form of unreliable energy on an energy dependent populace for political gain will doom a large portion of the world to starve to death in the dark.