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.

top 65 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 171 points 4 months ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 37 points 4 months ago (13 children)

    « * 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    It’s a rather complex system here but I reckon our checks and balances are still somewhat functional. I have some trust.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    There is no such thing as sustainable jet fuel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (2 children)

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

    How does that even matter? They don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 68 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    What in the fuck have these people been smoking...

    I can't think of a less green form of transportation besides perhaps rockets.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    How many of them, that decided this, have a private jet?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 64 points 4 months ago (14 children)
  • [–] 39 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Getting rid of the gas stove is for your own respiratory health.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 4 months ago (5 children)
  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 24 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    You’ve been driving your gas stove?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Ha! Those stupid americans!

    Wait... EU? But everyone from the EU says they're too smart for stuff like this to happen.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, it's funny when they see that it can happen to them too. How is germany doing with that Afd, anyway?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    Didn't the EU also pass laws making green washing illegal?

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Courts have a long, proud tradition of not seeing the forest through the trees.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    Ran across this relevant YouTube short yesterday:

    https://youtube.com/shorts/Xmka1awC1b4?is=cZCx07wrTSWth3OV

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    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

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    Children of Kali time. Let's build some drones .

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago*

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago*

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • 28 comments in c/europe@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post
    [–] 87 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    Private jets produced up to 19.5m tonnes of emissions in 2023, more than from all flights departing Heathrow airport that year, the International Council on Clean Transportation reported.

    In 2024, climate scientists warned that the mega-rich use private jets like taxis – and found that flying in a private jet for a single hour can release more CO2 into the atmosphere than the average person produces in a year.

    Once again it's the 0.1% ruining things for everyone else. When will we as a society finally say we've had enough

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • The future can only be seen through divinations of billionaire viscera.

    Personally; I can stand living without a future. I've kind of adapted. Been one of the walking dead most of my life. I take risks and kind of hope one gets me someday; I've lost so many fucking people, and seen the left, or what passes for it here, absolutely disgust me with its dogmatic anti intellectual cowardly cargo cult addiction to doing nothing that will ever matter (including fucking gardening in ways that will matter-im not just being an edgelord here) that I don't really expect any kind of tomorrow.

    It's these people who gaslight me for not joining in on the mass ritual suicide who piss me off. Who wake up each day and decide to crush all hope because change is scary and they'd rather face certain death as long as daddy tells them everything's okay who piss me off.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 60 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Next up, the EU subsidizes clearing forests for golf courses as green initiatives.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    So, the cheque finally cleared then.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    It’s really hard for me to stay motivated and doing my part when a decade of my hard work can be cancelled out in seconds by a few rich fucks meeting up for dinner.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago
    [–] 15 points 4 months ago

    Then the EU’s General Court is stupid and bought. Sorry. Better you hear it from me here than someone in the street.

  • source
  • [+] 21 points 4 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    still using words like “greenwashing” directly instead of the already-weaseling “fueling concerns about greenwashing” is seen as expressing an opinion. i’m glad with that if it means i can instantly identify an unreliable right-wing outlet through, say “gone woke”

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    What the in the corrupt fuck?

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    That's like saying that cars are greener than buses because they're faster and more flexible

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • And ketchup is a vegetable.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    What American style bullshit is this?! 🤬

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Me nuking the EU court couldn't necessarily be seen as a crime because alternatives lack the flexibility and convenience of a nuke.

    Say "alternatives" in the title of that's what you're doing.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    An EU court

    In which country?!? Where does this "EU court" reside?!?

    I suspect France, given that Dassault is involved. Or maybe it is the EU Court, but doubtful

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Good job. Now lets make coal mines a green investment too.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    If even private jets do, what does not count as green investment?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Europe, US midwest here.. look out for your neighbors and yourself. We've got some similar heat over here at the moment, AC not quite adequate in my living situation either.

    I cannot recommend enough some of Ben's (@nighthawkinlight on youtube) 18C/65F cooling pack recipe (1.2L water, 240ml Sodium Sulfate (Na2SO4), 60ml table salt (NaCl), and additionally some 20mls xanthan gum to gel). It's so cheap that I've given a bunch of small packs out to neighbors and gym friends and everyone has been equally fastinated by them.

    Small pack for my hat or shoulders, lasts some hour or so. Pillowcase, I want to make a blanket soon, but I've also made some small towel like ones that I've used outside extensively. This 115F/46C heat index weather is fucking miserable, 80% humidity, made more certainly worse by local microclimate. Im lucky to have a nice basement to retreat into, but I genuinely believe this simple recipe could be life saving. Cost me some 20USD total to make with simple freezer bags, but I invested in a vacuum sealer also for my food, but the bags have shown to be durable, especially resealing multiple times in the food preserver.

    I don't mean to conpare the fucking US's situation to yours, but I feel the global wealth disparity will affect much the same regardless, and the warming still won't stop for anyone now. Be prepared, care for each other.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    I am not happy about this ruling but I also really like disinformation. The court did not rule that "Private Jets Now Count As ‘Green’ Investments"

  • source