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://lemmy.ca/post/67203436

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.

  • iglou@programming.devEnglish
    17·
    2 days ago

    I’d like to invest in the green production of coal generators. Yes, I’ve made the process sustainable. It’s not my fault that people burn coal in it.

    • iocase@lemmy.zipEnglish
      4·
      1 day ago

      Well as a matter of fact, southern US states consider coal to be a green technology already to get federal funding for coal plants.

      Also, coal used to be green at one point when it was still living plants, same with oil! Both of those should be green as well!

    • scholarEnglish
      282·
      2 days ago

      Sounds like a conflict of interest, either personally with the members of the court, or related to the large stacks of cash that they have recently received from anonymous donors - expecting nothing in return of course.

    • ViatorOmnium@piefed.socialEnglish
      181·
      2 days ago

      The judges want to use private jets because “they are fast and flexible” and want us to subsidize it even more.

      Completely unrelated, I think guillotines are the true green investment.

    • Kissaki@feddit.orgEnglish
      4·
      2 days ago

      Click through to the Reuters article. It’s concise and much better at listing the court ruling.

      The previous court seemingly did not consider production vs flight, possibility to use different kinds of fuel, and “flexibility”. Given that the previous court has not considered all concerns, they invalidate their ruling.

      Another court process could do the full assessment now/again.

      To me, seems like a court proceedings thing more than a ruling on the actual question.

  • Vincent@feddit.nlEnglish
    9·
    2 days ago

    This sounds so far-fetched that I’m inclined to think I haven’t seen the actual reasoning yet. The main nuance I can see thus far is that this is about the manufacture of private jets, i.e. flying them still wouldn’t be seen as sustainable. And part of the reasoning is that they could theoretically be flown on sustainable fuel?

    • iglou@programming.devEnglish
      51·
      2 days ago

      This is not them reasoning, this is them finding gaps in the legislations so that they can keep greenwashing.

      Unless there is legislation that mandates the use of sustainable fuel, with very strict legislation on what makes jet fuel sustainable, or preferably, a legislation that only allows jets built with an engine that can only accept said sustainable fuels, then there is no reason to consider jets manufacturing a green investment.

      I’d also like the EU to have a backbone, but let’s not play devil’s advocate just because of that wish. They have actual devil’s lawyers for that. The reality is that the EU is losing its green direction. And that’s driven by all our national votes.

      Vote green in EU parliamentary elections.

      • Vincent@feddit.nlEnglish
        11·
        2 days ago

        I mean, this is a court, not a private jet manufacturer. I’d like to at least know their stated reasoning, and am not going to assume that they’re automatically in cahoots with the manufacturers.

        I also think that we need good regulations and that people should vote for that, but that also seems orthogonal to what a court rules, other than that it should base itself on those rules - but if that’s what it did, then again, I want to know what those rules are.

        • iglou@programming.devEnglish
          3·
          2 days ago

          This is a court making a decision because Dassault, a jet manufacturer, argued that it was illegal to exclude jets manufacturing from green investments. The court follows the law, not their opinion.

          So Dassault’s lawyers found the gaps, not the court. The reasoning of the court is very likely that indeed, by the current laws, the exclusion is illegal, wether they agree with it or not.