Not The Onion

21869 readers

1296 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

537

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

submitted 1 day ago by theacharnian@lemmy.ca to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

67 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

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 24 points 1 day ago (3 children)

As far as I can tell, this ruling is about the manufacturer of jets, not using them.

So, uhh, it's a green investment to buy one and let it sit unused. I guess I can't disagree with that.

Nowhere does this ruling say that flying is green.

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Producing a product that is never used is also a waste and bad for the environment though, no?

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 7 hours ago

FDR begs to differ

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

So, uhh, it's a green investment to buy one and let it sit unused. I guess I can't disagree with that.

I can. Do you think building the planes doesn't affect the environment? And the companies wouldn't build them if the demand wasn't there.

So maybe it's not as bad as burning tons of jet fuel with them, but just being willing to buy one is enough to damage the environment.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Courts have a long, proud tradition of not seeing the forest through the trees.

[–] popekingjoe@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Or the trees themselves, for that matter.

[–] mattyroses@lemmy.today 3 points 16 hours ago

"what's a tree?" - kid born in 5 years