reuters.com
www.reuters.com
  • teft@piefed.socialEnglish
    3·
    9 days ago

    It also said that the CO2 footprint related to ​the operation of aircraft, not the ​manufacturing ⁠of them.

    Wow. That is some weasel word logic if ever i’ve seen it.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      2·
      9 days ago

      We’ll that is great! So all they have to do is manufacture private jets that billionaires can then hang on their ceilings, but never fly.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    3·
    9 days ago

    So either somebody bought a few people on this court or the court is dumb as fuck as the arguments are either nonsensical to the point that a highschooler could figure it out, or they’re flat out lies

    I would expect this from the US because there they pull this shit all day, but in Europe? Come on, you’re better than that. Be better than that

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    2·
    9 days ago

    The court noted that the Commission had failed to take into account that ⁠private jets could be flown on sustainable fuel.

    Ex-fucking-cuseme?

    There is no sustainable fuel, at least not the type that won’t generate CO2, WHICH IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS.

    Yeah you can grow biofuels, then you have the exact same fuel coming from a different source. Awesome. STILL GENERATES THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF CO2 YOU TWATS

    • Successful_Try543@feddit.org
      1·
      8 days ago

      STILL GENERATES THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF CO2 YOU TWATS

      It only generates the same amount of CO2 that has been previosly (within a short period of time, e.g. a year) taken from the atmosphere.
      The time constraint is the reason burning wood is not considered CO2-neutral.