EU to categorize investments in gas and nuclear power as green
A majority in the European Parliament has spurned attempts to foil a contentious proposal from the European Commission.
The proposal will result in the classification of oil and nuclear power investments as sustainable during a transition period. According to the Commission, this is necessary to award countries enough time to start developing renewable energy.
However, critics argue that the proposal will pave the way for long-term investments in nuclear power and gas. This would run counter to the EU’s green ambitions, critics say.
MEP Niels Fuglsang of S&D calls the vote ”a huge setback for the climate.”
”Today’s vote means that a significant amount of money that the EU has earmarked for green investments in member nations’ recovery plans risks ending up in long-term investments in nuclear power and fossil gas. In the worst-case scenario, it would tie us to natural gas for many years beyond 2030,” says Fuglsang:
”This is completely beyond the pale, and it bodes ill for future of the climate fight,” says Fuglsang.
He notes that the legislation could entail that pension funds are allowed to advertise nuclear power and gas investments as ”green” to customers.
”That’s greenwashing through and through.”
A similar view is expressed by MEP Nikolaj Willumsen of GUE/NGL.
”Unfortunately, a majority in the European Parliament has chosen to pay more attention to short-sighted and narrow interests of major energy companies than science and climate considerations. That’s truly tragic,” says Villumsen.
The opposition against the European Commission’s proposal has come from left-leaning parts of the European Parliament, while right-leaning EU parties have supported the proposal.
MEP Linea Søgaard-Lidell of Renew also voted no to the proposal, however.
”I’m simply just disappointed in the result of today’s vote and that we didn’t manage to foil the Commission’s hopeless decision,” she says.
Disappointment might be an understatement for Greenpeace. The NGO views the inclusion of nuclear and natural gas as running counter to the rules of the Taxonomy Regulation stating that the activities can ”do no significant harm”.
After the failed attempt to thwart the proposal, they now call for a legal challenge instead. The next step for Greenpeace is to submit a formal request for internal review to the Commission, and if this turns out in a negative result, they will mount a case before the European Court of Justice.
”It’s dirty politics and it’s an outrageous outcome to label gas and nuclear as green and keep more money flowing to Putin’s war chest, but now we will fight this in the courts. The EU Commission’s shameful backroom dealing on behalf of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries won’t help them there,” says Greenpeace’s EU sustainability finance campaigner, Ariadna Rodrigo:
”We’re inspired by the climate activists here in Strasbourg this week and are confident that the court will strike down this politically motivated greenwashing as clearly in breach of EU law.”
Necessary for transition
On the other hand, the European Commission argues that the proposal is necessary to help more EU nations transition to green energy.
Ahead of the vote, European Commissioner of Financial Services Mairead McGuinness admitted that the proposal isn’t ideal:
”I’ve never called gas ’green energy’. It’s a fossil fuel. And I can say that in a myriad of languages if need be,” she remarked prior to the vote.
However, she also underlined that the proposal is crucial and ”pragmatic” given the current energy shortages.
”Some member nations moving away from dirty fossil fuels need gas in the transition phase. Nuclear power is also part of our energy mix during the transition phase,” said McGuinness.
MEPs criticize plan to continue investing in oil and nuclear power
IEA: Nuclear power set for potential comeback
EU to approve nuclear power, natural gas in green taxonomy
EU nations divided on natural gas and nuclear power inclusion in taxonomy
.jpg&w=384&q=75){kind=logo}
