Brussels has officially taken a position in the religious war that has been raging for months over the sustainability of nuclear energy and natural gas and has awarded both the green label of the so-called taxonomy. Environmentalists are angry and want to stop the Commission in the European Parliament.
Livestream of the media conference of the European Commission
“I hope I don’t get too emotional,” says Bas Eickhout. At a press conference on Wednesday, the MEP from the Greens did not turn his heart into a den of murder. The EU Commission’s decision to classify natural gas and nuclear energy as “green” is “a historic mistake”. This undermines the credibility of the green “deal” and the blemish will be the legacy of EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
EU wants to “redirect” investments
Environmentalists across Europe are furious with the EU Commission’s taxonomy. The panel today unveiled the most controversial element of this classification system after months of wrangling. The question at stake is whether nuclear energy and natural gas should be classified as “environmentally sustainable”. Under great political pressure, especially from Germany (natural gas) and France (nuclear power), Brussels has declared the two forms of energy as part of the solution on the way to climate neutrality by 2050 and thus at least temporarily as ecologically sustainable.
Nuclear power should be considered green again in the EU: decommissioned Grohnde nuclear power plant in the Lower Saxony municipality of Emmerthal.
The taxonomy goes to one Action plan of the EU Commission from March 2018 back, which had been presented under the former President Jean-Claude Juncker. According to von der Leyen, it should be a kind of guide for private investors and “redirect” investments in the EU, for example in renewable energies. This is the only way Brussels believes that the EU will only be able to emit as many greenhouse gases by the middle of the century as forests and technology can absorb.
EU Economic Commissioner Paolo Gentiloni figured At the beginning of December, the necessary additional investment requirements in the EU to 520 billion euros per year.
According to the taxonomy, in order to be «green», an activity must contribute significantly to one of six goals. In addition to climate protection, the EU also includes adaptation to climate change, the protection of water and the sea, the transition to a circular economy, the reduction of environmental pollution and the protection of ecosystems. At the same time, an activity must not significantly impair any of the other five goals (“do no significant harm”).
Accordingly, certain large companies must disclose what proportion of their sales is “green” according to this definition. Investment firms can calculate how environmentally sustainable a portfolio is.
Resistance focused on the EU Parliament
Due to the specific legal form of this controversial part of the taxonomy – it is a so-called delegated act – the Commission can decide almost single-handedly. Such acts are actually intended for legislative details that are undisputed. However, that is by no means the case here.
But critics have high hurdles if they still want to stop the commission. This requires a kind of supermajority of 20 member states or a majority of 353 of the 705 seats in the EU Parliament.
Member States such as Germany, Austria and Luxembourg are opposed to Brussels’ decision. But a majority of 20 states seems extremely unlikely. Because with France and many Eastern European countries, there are significantly more than 7 supporters.
Accordingly, the opponents are now hoping for the EU Parliament. The Green Party estimates that around 250 MPs have so far publicly opposed the green label for natural gas and nuclear power. In addition to the Greens, these are primarily parliamentarians from the Social Democrats and the Left. However, there are also individual voices from the European People’s Party that are fighting back. This includes Peter Liesen from the CDU.
It could be dangerous for the Commission that there are four different reasons for a no vote by MEPs. First, there are opponents of nuclear energy. Second, there are opponents of natural gas, which, unlike nuclear reactors, emits CO2. Thirdly, there are also politicians who are angry that the Commission has not involved the EU Parliament more in the decision-making process. And fourthly, individual members of parliament accuse Ursula von der Leyen of exceeding her powers because she makes an extremely controversial and fundamental political decision in a legal act intended for uncritical detailed questions.
But the member states do not want to admit defeat either. Austria and Luxembourg have already announced that they will take legal action against the Commission. It is possible that Germany will follow this afterwards. However, the chances of success for this legal step are unclear.
The dispute is also so bitter because the taxonomy is later to be used as a kind of bible for green economic activity and offers a starting point for many other regulations. Consider, for example, specifications for green bonds. Furthermore, banks could be allowed to back green investment products with less equity. The European Central Bank may be considering preferring to buy green bonds. And with the EU budget rules, the so-called Stability and Growth Pact, Paris and Rome have long been pushing for green debt to be given preferential treatment.
In addition, Brussels hopes to once again be able to set a global gold standard with the taxonomy. However, at least environmentalists like Bas Eickhout have buried this hope. For them, the EU is losing its global “green” pioneering role with the decision.