D.he conflict over the sustainability of nuclear power, which the EU Commission is now finally bringing to Berlin with its decision on a “green” taxonomy, has a long history. It is confusing because – in principle – each member state can decide its own energy mix and the EU cannot have a say. However, the EU has competencies in financial market legislation. The dispute over green or not-so-green nuclear power has its origins there, of all places.
As early as the beginning of 2018, the Commission pointed out that the fight against climate change required substantial investments and that their financing had to be based on “green” criteria. For this purpose, the EU authority developed the “taxonomy” – a catalog of criteria in which different financial products are classified as sustainable, halfway sustainable and not at all sustainable. What sounds technical, sets the political and economic course: In the future, the catalog will largely determine where trillions of investor money and billions of EU funds will go – and where not.
Germany is losing ground
When the negotiators from the EU Parliament, Member States and the Commission agreed on a first version of the taxonomy in 2019, investments in energy sources such as sun and wind were classified as green, coal was dropped entirely. Gas has been classified differently depending on the climate impact of the respective energy generation method. At the time, the negotiators excluded nuclear power, its effects on the climate were too controversial, and the interests of the member states, especially the nuclear power France and the energy transition nation Germany, were too different. The decision in this dispute was left to the EU Commission, which should determine the further content of the catalog of criteria itself in a “delegated act” on the taxonomy regulation.
Read F + 30 days for free now and get access to all articles on FAZ.NET.
READ F + NOW
The EU Commission delayed the publication of the legal act for a long time, not least because of the political explosiveness. Admittedly, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made it clear in October which decision she wanted to make: “We also need a stable source, nuclear energy, and of course natural gas in the transition,” she wrote on Twitter at the time. “That is why we will present our proposal for the taxonomy.”
The content of the proposal is in line with this announcement. According to this, the generation of energy from nuclear energy in existing plants can be classified as ecologically sustainable, provided that the member state has a concept for the disposal of radioactive waste. Furthermore, new construction and operation of nuclear power plants can be considered green, provided that the building permit has been granted by 2045. In addition, in line with German concerns, energy generation from gas should also be considered sustainable for a transitional period. Gas is therefore considered green, provided that the building permit for the plant has been granted by 2030, certain emission limit values are not exceeded and the plant replaces existing plants that run on less clean fossil fuels.
It is certainly no coincidence that the publication comes at a time when the Commission’s offices are mostly closed. At the beginning of the French EU Council Presidency, the Commission intends to stand firmly by the side of President Emmanuel Macron. The Commission also has the majority of the EU countries behind it. In any case, in the two weeks that the Länder now have to analyze the proposal, it will not be possible to organize the necessary qualified majority against it in the Council of Ministers. Only the non-nuclear states Austria and Luxembourg, who also want to sue, have signaled a clear rejection. How the German traffic light coalition will position itself is not as certain as the protests of leading green politicians would have us believe. Germany is losing ground. It remains to be seen whether Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) is more important about coalition peace or harmony with Macron.