Not The Onion

21869 readers

2496 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

454

EU Court Says Private Jets Now Count As ‘Green’ Investments (novaramedia.com)

submitted 23 hours ago by theacharnian@lemmy.ca to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/48796725

An EU court has said the manufacture of private jets can’t be excluded from a list of activities deemed to be environmentally sustainable, fuelling concerns about the greenwashing of the emissions of the super-rich.

The list, intended to provide an ⁠overview of green investments, previously excluded aircraft for private or commercial business aviation due to their high emissions compared with other forms of transport following a 2023 decision by the European Commission.

The court argued that the 2023 ruling was made with a number of errors, including that other modes of transport couldn’t necessarily be seen as low-carbon alternatives as they “lack the flexibility and speed” of private jets.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 37 points 21 hours ago (4 children)

« * The court noted that the Commission had failed to take into account that ⁠private jets could be flown on sustainable fuel.

The Commission can appeal the ruling within two months. »

Not all is lost… it’s a technicality especially if sustainable fuel has a stringent definition which is exactly what I would do if I was to address this decision.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 hours ago

could be

That "could be" is pulling a lot of weight...

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

* The court noted […] that ⁠private jets could be flown on sustainable fuel.

How does that even matter? They don't.

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

That’s what legislation is about; defining shit. If you don’t grasp the importance of clear, precise and fool proof regulatory frameworks which includes such a definition I don’t suppose you’re the public that should worry about technicalities. Just consider that this is generally part of the game and it will be patched.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

There is no such thing as sustainable jet fuel.

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

That’s exactly my point… the definition would define that in a way that makes the court decision irrelevant.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I'm only basing this on your comment, but there's no real "definition" there. They'll just lie and say x new fuel is sustainable per their definition.

Unless they actually go into a lot of detail as to what a fuel needs to be to be sustainable.

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

The lack of detail is what got them the court decision. Logically the definition will be amended. That’s generally how they proceed while establishing regulations. Sometimes with better first time right though.

[–] huppakee@lemmy.world 11 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

If money is involved the owners of that money already thought of that. If it was blackmail, the individual(s) involved probably made a plan for that hurdle. But here's to hoping the Commission will do the right thing.

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

It’s a rather complex system here but I reckon our checks and balances are still somewhat functional. I have some trust.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I reckon our checks and balances are still somewhat functional

Have you been in a coma since January 2025?

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

We’re talking Europe right? We haven’t yet fallen in as low as some others.