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.
68 Comments
VexLogic@feddit.online · 179 pts · 52d
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
huppakee@lemmy.world · 56 pts · 52d
Worst timeline... so far
Noite_Etion@lemmy.world · 69 pts · 52d
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
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
homes@piefed.world · 24 pts · 52d
Trains literally bend. WTF
MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io · 23 pts · 52d
Technically trains hinge.
Planes do bend
TIEPilot@lemmy.world · 65 pts · 52d
And they want me to give up driving and my gas stove...
"Rules for thee, not for me"
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 41 pts · 52d
Getting rid of the gas stove is for your own respiratory health.
Tja@programming.dev · 2 pts · 51d
Same for the combustion car. But, muh freedumbs...
TIEPilot@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 52d
Not my setup, no pilot and I have a hood that vents outside when its in use...
victorz@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 52d
Do you have a moment to talk about our Lord and savior, the induction hob?
TIEPilot@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 52d
I have one for my wok to get the super high temps.
Macchi_the_Slime@piefed.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 51d
I will say, I had a no pilot gas stove with a ventilation hood and I noticed I big improvement switching to induction when my apartment participated in this pilot program for it. But I also have asthma so I'm much more sensitive to stuff like that, so your mileage may vary.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 52d
Good, then fuck 'em
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 52d
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 52d
CandleTiger@programming.dev · 1 pts · 51d
Normal residential oven vent hoods do not remotely get all the cooking exhaust. I’m not sure they get any meaningful quantity of cooking exhaust.
Try an experiment that I’ve done at least once in several different houses over the years: turn on your hood vent fan, then leave your food on the stove and accidentally burn the everloving shit out of it.
Is your house full of smoke and fire alarms going off? Then your range hood is not protecting you from combustion products coming off the range
TIEPilot@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 51d
Ok I get it, Home Depot hoods are terrible. I don't have one of those, I have something like this:
No fire alarms go off when I sear/blacken anything went its at medium pull. I will say its a pain in the ass to clean, I try to use the outside BBQ as much as possible.
EDIT:
And this should be standard/code for all houses imo
br3d@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 52d
Yes. We need to do those things as well, and this travesty doesn't remove the need for all of us to decarbonise
homes@piefed.world · 25 pts · 52d
You’ve been driving your gas stove?
WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today · 9 pts · 52d
It gets them all hot & bothered.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 52d
Of all the people to drive a gas stove I would have thought it'd be you, homes.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 51d
Using the stove to heat up the water instead of coal is a natural evolution of the steam engine...
homes@piefed.world · 1 pts · 51d
Walk_blesseD@piefed.blahaj.zone · 0 pts · 51d
Range rover? Nah mate, I drive a range hood 😎
a4ng3l@lemmy.world · 38 pts · 52d
« * The court noted that the Commission had failed to take into account that private jets could be flown on sustainable fuel.
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.
huppakee@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 52d
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 pts · 52d
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 pts · 51d
Have you been in a coma since January 2025?
a4ng3l@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 51d
We’re talking Europe right? We haven’t yet fallen in as low as some others.
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 7 pts · 52d
There is no such thing as sustainable jet fuel.
a4ng3l@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 52d
That’s exactly my point… the definition would define that in a way that makes the court decision irrelevant.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 51d
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 pts · 51d
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.
Tja@programming.dev · 0 pts · 51d
Sure there is, it's just very expensive at the moment. Anything created from capturing CO2 from the atmosphere is sustainable.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 51d
That "could be" is pulling a lot of weight...
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 51d
How does that even matter? They don't.
a4ng3l@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 51d
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.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 50d
But maybe keep it based on reality then?
Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca · 27 pts · 52d
What in the fuck have these people been smoking...
I can't think of a less green form of transportation besides perhaps rockets.
Naich@piefed.world · 14 pts · 52d
How about a traction engine with flame throwers on the sides to burn down forests as it trundles along?
GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 52d
you forgot the methane gas exhaust system
Rhaedas@fedia.io · 9 pts · 52d
A rocket might be better than a private jet overall. May depend on the payload and its purpose.
MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io · 5 pts · 52d
And it’s fuel.
victorz@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 52d
Happy cake day!
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 23 pts · 52d
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.
Fedizen@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 52d
Courts have a long, proud tradition of not seeing the forest through the trees.
popekingjoe@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 52d
Or the trees themselves, for that matter.
mattyroses@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 51d
"what's a tree?" - kid born in 5 years
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 51d
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.
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 51d
Producing a product that is never used is also a waste and bad for the environment though, no?
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 0 pts · 51d
FDR begs to differ
Jerb322@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 52d
How many of them, that decided this, have a private jet?
Almacca@aussie.zone · 10 pts · 52d
Or are looking to buy one in the near future?
Zorque@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 52d
Or be gifted one.
cabillaud@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 52d
Maybe none, but they like little presents, from time to time.
Exusia@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 52d
As a treat
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 52d
Give it a week or two before counting
CADmonkey@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 51d
Ha! Those stupid americans!
Wait... EU? But everyone from the EU says they're too smart for stuff like this to happen.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 11 pts · 51d
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.
CADmonkey@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 51d
Yeah, it's funny when they see that it can happen to them too. How is germany doing with that Afd, anyway?
zarathustrad@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 51d
I assume the Afd is just waiting for the Americans to come "liberate" them with an impressive UNO reverse of WWII.
"We're moving at a faster pace!"
Sing along every one! (Sounds of Mel Brooks dying)
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 51d
wHy DoN't ThE eUrOpEaN pEoPlE dO sOmEtHiNg!!!??one
CADmonkey@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 51d
Legitimately lol'ed
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 9 pts · 52d
Didn't the EU also pass laws making green washing illegal?
uhmbah@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 52d
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
officermike@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 52d
Ran across this relevant YouTube short yesterday:
https://youtube.com/shorts/Xmka1awC1b4?is=cZCx07wrTSWth3OV
mattyroses@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 51d
Children of Kali time. Let's build some drones .
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 51d
It sounds like the EU courts are captured.
It turns out immense consolidated economic and political power are not just a US problem, but a whole world problem.
Wait until the EU learns one trillionaire has enough wealth to control all governments, and wreck not just the US.
ishartdoritos@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 51d
June 24 (Reuters) - The manufacture of private jets cannot be excluded from a list of activities deemed to be environmentally sustainable, the European Union's second-highest court said on Wednesday, annulling a decision by the European Commission.
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/eu-court-says-private-jet-manufacturing-can-be-labelled-green-investment-2026-06-24/
Maybe all you morons should read the article and then look at what the article from a stupid no name website is basing their clickbait on. Before you jerk yourself too hard.
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 51d
you should read it, too:
and the court decided in favor of AM.PA, (hence “cannot be excluded” meaning they overturned the 2023 move) meaning business aviation goes back into the list if the Commission doesn’t appeal
betanumerus@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 51d
I never use the word "green" so the joke's on them. Emissions amounts from fossil combustion is what matters, not PR labels. You want lots of words instead of short cuts? Deal with it. I'll "emissions amounts from fossil combustion" your sorry ears all day long with pleasure. And I'll have the raw data and graphs in my back pocket.