The proposal is seen as a concession to countries like Germany and France. Immediately criticism came from environmentalists. The commission undermines its own climate goals, so the German environmental aid. Labeling nuclear power and natural gas as sustainable is not credible.
Specifically, the proposal provides that investments planned in France in new batteries can be classified as green if the systems meet the latest technology standards and a specific plan for a disposal facility for high-level radioactive waste is submitted by 2050 at the latest. It is also a condition that the new facilities receive a building permit by 2045. The text is available to the German Press Agency.
Investments in new gas-fired power plants should also be able to be classified as green temporarily, especially at Germany’s request. For example, how much greenhouse gases are emitted should be relevant. For plants that are approved after 2030, only up to 100 grams of so-called CO2 equivalents per kilowatt hour of energy would be allowed – calculated over the life cycle.
The classification of economic activities by the EU Commission is intended to enable investors to convert their investments to more sustainable technologies and companies and thus make a significant contribution to Europe’s climate neutrality by 2050. However, whether gas and nuclear power should be considered climate-friendly as part of the so-called taxonomy is controversial among EU countries.
Germany, for example, is against the uptake of nuclear power, but sees electricity generation from gas as a necessary transition technology. For countries like France, on the other hand, nuclear power is a key technology for a carbon-free economy.
Federal Minister of Economics and Climate Protection Robert Habeck (Greens) commented: “From our point of view, it would not have needed this addition to the taxonomy rules.” Labeling the “high-risk technology” of nuclear energy as sustainable is wrong. This obscures the long-term effects on people and the environment. Nuclear waste will pollute the EU for centuries.
Habeck described the inclusion of gas as “questionable”. After all, the commission makes it clear that fossil fuel gas is only a transition and must be replaced by green hydrogen. New gas-fired power plants would have to be geared towards hydrogen by now. From 2035 onwards, they will run on green hydrogen or low-carbon gas.
Significantly more critical voices came from the EU Parliament. This is how Commission head Ursula von der Leyen is destroying the credibility of the European eco-label for financial investments, commented German MP Michael Bloss (Greens). Putting nuclear power and natural gas on a par with solar and wind power is mocking the successes in climate protection and slowing down the energy transition. Instead of channeling money into the solar and wind industries, old and extremely expensive business models would be continued.
The EU Commission defended its proposal. This means that the member states could move from very different starting positions in the direction of the common goal of climate neutrality, the authority said. This is why solutions that appear less “green” at first glance could also be useful. Investments in natural gas and nuclear energy could help accelerate the switch to energy sources with lower emissions.
The EU member states now have until January 12 to comment on the draft. Its implementation can only be prevented if at least 20 EU states come together, representing at least 65 percent of the total population of the EU, or at least 353 members of the EU Parliament. This is considered unlikely since, besides Germany, only countries such as Austria, Luxembourg, Denmark and Portugal are clearly against taking up nuclear power.
Habeck only announced: “We do not see approval of the new proposals of the EU Commission.” There was no mention of any engagement against the Commission proposal.