Not The Onion

21869 readers

2531 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

463

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

58 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 1 points 13 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 6 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 5 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.