- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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 must log in or register to comment.
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.
Courts have a long, proud tradition of not seeing the forest through the trees.
Or the trees themselves, for that matter.
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
« * 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.
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.
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.
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.
Not my setup, no pilot and I have a hood that vents outside when its in use…
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
You’ve been driving your gas stove?
Of all the people to drive a gas stove I would have thought it’d be you, homes.
It gets them all hot & bothered.
Yes. We need to do those things as well, and this travesty doesn’t remove the need for all of us to decarbonise
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.
How many of them, that decided this, have a private jet?
Give it a week or two before counting
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
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:
