An EU court has said the manufacture of private jets can’t be excluded from a list of ​activities deemed to be environmentally sustainable.

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.worldEnglish
    38·
    3 days 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.

    • huppakee@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      3 days 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.worldEnglish
        6·
        3 days 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.zoneEnglish
          1·
          2 days ago

          I reckon our checks and balances are still somewhat functional

          Have you been in a coma since January 2025?

          • a4ng3l@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 days ago

            We’re talking Europe right? We haven’t yet fallen in as low as some others.

      • a4ng3l@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        3 days ago

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

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          1·
          2 days 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.

          • a4ng3l@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 days 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.

      • Tja@programming.devEnglish
        11·
        2 days ago

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

    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zipEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

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

      How does that even matter? They don’t.

      • a4ng3l@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        2 days 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.