Ha! Those stupid americans!
Wait... EU? But everyone from the EU says they're too smart for stuff like this to happen.
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026
445 points (100.0% liked)
Not The Onion
21869 readers
2476 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
wHy DoN't ThE eUrOpEaN pEoPlE dO sOmEtHiNg!!!??one
Legitimately lol'ed
Even EU politicians like money, and can be persuaded to change their mind if presented with enough of it. And rich people like their planes.
Yeah, it's funny when they see that it can happen to them too. How is germany doing with that Afd, anyway?
Children of Kali time. Let's build some drones .
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.
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.
Courts have a long, proud tradition of not seeing the forest through the trees.
Or the trees themselves, for that matter.
"what's a tree?" - kid born in 5 years
Didn't the EU also pass laws making green washing illegal?
Ya know, when I first subscribed to NotTheOnion I thought the title was a bit confusing. But over time I've realized the beauty of it. Looking at these headlines and thinking to myself, "man this has got to be a joke right?" then I look up and see this is NotTheOnion, and my heart sinks 😅 We're really in the worst timeline huh guys
Worst timeline... so far
And they want me to give up driving and my gas stove...
"Rules for thee, not for me"
You’ve been driving your gas stove?
Range rover? Nah mate, I drive a range hood 😎
Using the stove to heat up the water instead of coal is a natural evolution of the steam engine...
It gets them all hot & bothered.
Of all the people to drive a gas stove I would have thought it'd be you, homes.
Yes. We need to do those things as well, and this travesty doesn't remove the need for all of us to decarbonise
« * 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.
could be
That "could be" is pulling a lot of weight...
* The court noted […] that private jets could be flown on sustainable fuel.
How does that even matter? They don't.
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.
There is no such thing as sustainable jet fuel.
That’s exactly my point… the definition would define that in a way that makes the court decision irrelevant.
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.
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.
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.
It’s a rather complex system here but I reckon our checks and balances are still somewhat functional. I have some trust.
I reckon our checks and balances are still somewhat functional
Have you been in a coma since January 2025?
We’re talking Europe right? We haven’t yet fallen in as low as some others.
transport couldn’t necessarily be seen as low-carbon alternatives as they “lack the flexibility and speed” of private jets.
Despite going through hundreds of litres of jet fuel an hour... All for one person in some cases.
Sorry trains, you aren't flexible enough... Whatever the fuck that means
The court clarified that the climate impact metric used by the Commission is about aircraft operation, while this taxonomy decision was about the manufacturing of the aircraft itself.
Oh so they agree that private jets are horrendously inefficient and ruin the environment, but they are "green" to build them so that is okay...
WTF
How many of them, that decided this, have a private jet?
Maybe none, but they like little presents, from time to time.
As a treat
Or are looking to buy one in the near future?
Or be gifted one.
Give it a week or two before counting
What in the fuck have these people been smoking...
I can't think of a less green form of transportation besides perhaps rockets.
How about a traction engine with flame throwers on the sides to burn down forests as it trundles along?
load more comments
(1 replies)
A rocket might be better than a private jet overall. May depend on the payload and its purpose.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Green is a type of table with 6 or more legs
Rock is a type of pen
Solidarity is another word for quicksand
Poor is defined as a human citizen
If thee can change the definition of anything they want, then so can me
view more: next ›