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.

  • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    « * 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.

      • Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Sure there is, it’s just very expensive at the moment. Anything created from capturing CO2 from the atmosphere is sustainable.

      • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s exactly my point… the definition would define that in a way that makes the court decision irrelevant.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      * The court noted […] that ⁠private ​jets could be flown ​on sustainable fuel.

      How does that even matter? They don’t.

      • a4ng3l@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

    • huppakee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I reckon our checks and balances are still somewhat functional

          Have you been in a coma since January 2025?