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.
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.
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.
you should read it, too:
- The Commission in 2023 excluded aircraft for private or commercial business aviation from the list, based on CO2 emissions per passenger kilometre compared with other modes of transport.
- That decision was contested by French planemaker Dassault Aviation AM.PA, which called it unlawful
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
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.
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.
Ha! Those stupid americans!
Wait… EU? But everyone from the EU says they’re too smart for stuff like this to happen.
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?
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)
wHy DoN’t ThE eUrOpEaN pEoPlE dO sOmEtHiNg!!!??one
Legitimately lol’ed
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.
Producing a product that is never used is also a waste and bad for the environment though, no?
FDR begs to differ
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
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
Didn’t the EU also pass laws making green washing illegal?
And they want me to give up driving and my gas stove…
“Rules for thee, not for me”
Getting rid of the gas stove is for your own respiratory health.
Same for the combustion car. But, muh freedumbs…
Not my setup, no pilot and I have a hood that vents outside when its in use…
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
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
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.
Do you have a moment to talk about our Lord and savior, the induction hob?
I have one for my wok to get the super high temps.
Good, then fuck 'em
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yes. We need to do those things as well, and this travesty doesn’t remove the need for all of us to decarbonise
You’ve been driving your gas stove?
Using the stove to heat up the water instead of coal is a natural evolution of the steam engine…
deleted by creator
Range rover? Nah mate, I drive a range hood 😎
It gets them all hot & bothered.
Of all the people to drive a gas stove I would have thought it’d be you, homes.
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
Trains literally bend. WTF
Technically trains hinge.
« * 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.
Sure there is, it’s just very expensive at the moment. Anything created from capturing CO2 from the atmosphere is sustainable.
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.
How many of them, that decided this, have a private jet?
Or are looking to buy one in the near future?
Or be gifted one.
Maybe none, but they like little presents, from time to time.
As a treat
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?
you forgot the methane gas exhaust system
A rocket might be better than a private jet overall. May depend on the payload and its purpose.
And it’s fuel.
Happy cake day!
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
Ran across this relevant YouTube short yesterday:
