this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2026
161 points (99.4% liked)

Europe

11500 readers
839 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SattaRIP@lemmy.blahaj.zone 51 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What a coincidence, so are guillotines

[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 days ago

Guy Fawkes was a enviormental advocat

[–] iglou@programming.dev 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.zip 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 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!

[–] notsosure@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 days ago

Humanity is doomed.

[–] Pip@feddit.org 21 points 2 days ago (3 children)

This sounds so bizarre. Can someone explain?

[–] scholar@lemmy.world 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] crandlecan@mander.xyz 5 points 2 days ago

Of course. That wouldn't be ethical!

[–] ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

Or wood chippers. We are living in a modern society after all.

[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 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.

[–] itrealgood@mander.xyz 11 points 2 days ago
[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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.dev 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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.nl 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.dev 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Right, so I'd be interested to know what law that reasoning is based on, i.e. what are the gaps in the law, and why are they there?

[–] iglou@programming.dev 2 points 2 days ago

Fair enough.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago

I went to protest but they threw some coins at me while looking disgusted.

[–] androidul@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

the audacity

[–] botbot@feddit.org 4 points 2 days ago
[–] EF@mastodon.bsd.cafe 3 points 2 days ago