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
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026
564 points (99.5% liked)
Not The Onion
21916 readers
881 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Worst timeline... so far
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
And they want me to give up driving and my gas stove...
"Rules for thee, not for me"
Yes. We need to do those things as well, and this travesty doesn't remove the need for all of us to decarbonise
You’ve been driving your gas stove?
It gets them all hot & bothered.
Using the stove to heat up the water instead of coal is a natural evolution of the steam engine...
load more comments
(1 replies)
Of all the people to drive a gas stove I would have thought it'd be you, homes.
load more comments
(1 replies)
« * 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.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Ha! Those stupid americans!
Wait... EU? But everyone from the EU says they're too smart for stuff like this to happen.
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.
Yeah, it's funny when they see that it can happen to them too. How is germany doing with that Afd, anyway?
I assume the Afd is just waiting for the Americans to come "liberate" them with an impressive UNO reverse of WWII.
"We're moving at a faster pace!"
Sing along every one! (Sounds of Mel Brooks dying)
wHy DoN't ThE eUrOpEaN pEoPlE dO sOmEtHiNg!!!??one
Legitimately lol'ed
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.
"what's a tree?" - kid born in 5 years
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.
Producing a product that is never used is also a waste and bad for the environment though, no?
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
How many of them, that decided this, have a private jet?
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
Give it a week or two before counting
Didn't the EU also pass laws making green washing illegal?
Children of Kali time. Let's build some drones .
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Ran across this relevant YouTube short yesterday:
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.
view more: next ›