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
    4·
    3 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
      1·
      3 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
        2·
        3 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.