The final proposal on the sustainability of gas and nuclear power comes this Wednesday
(Photo: dpa)
Brussels It is one of the trickiest political projects in current EU politics: gas and nuclear power should be allowed to be labeled as sustainable investments within the framework of the EU taxonomy, a classification system for the financial market. The EU Commission intends to present the corresponding final proposal this Wednesday.
As this is a delegated act, the Council can only stop the project if 20 member states, representing at least 65 percent of the EU population, oppose it. A simple majority is sufficient in the European Parliament. In both institutions, however, the supporters of the law are in the majority, so that nothing stands in the way of the green classification of gas and nuclear power.
Austria and Luxembourg have therefore announced legal action. The EU Commissioners of the two countries, Johannes Hahn and Nicolas Schmit, have also already announced that they intend to vote against the proposal at the decision-making Commission meeting this Wednesday.
In addition, the energy ministers of Austria, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands sent a fire letter to the Commission this Tuesday. The reason: While the Commission’s position on nuclear power is unlikely to be shaken in the final paper, the conditions under which gas is considered a sustainable energy source are to be relaxed – as a concession to Germany, which firmly rejects nuclear power, but instead does so wants to hit the gas.
Top jobs of the day
Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.
In their letter, the ministers demanded that natural gas should not be classified as “green”. Gas projects should only be allowed to be classified as “green” if their actual CO2 emissions are less than 100 grams per kilowatt hour. The EU Commission has so far set a limit of 270 grams.
Criticism of the EU taxonomy
Significantly stronger resistance is being formed in the EU parliament. The spokesman for the German Greens in the European Parliament, Rasmus Andresen, said at the party conference last weekend: “We are trying everything in the European Parliament to stop the inclusion of nuclear and gas in the taxonomy.”
The criteria of the EU taxonomy are probably also used as a benchmark for public spending on climate protection purposes.
(Photo: imago images/Tim Wagner)
It is good that the federal government has also taken a clear negative stance. Now is the time for the SPD and FDP to show their colors. “Join us in our clear no. Germany must reject the taxonomy regulation,” said Andresen.
In Brussels, the parliamentarians from the SPD and FDP are also critical of the EU taxonomy, particularly because of nuclear energy. Joachim Schuster, financial policy spokesman for the SPD MEPs, said: “There is no private capital for nuclear power as long as investors are not exempt from the costs of accident insurance and final storage.” The taxonomy will not change anything about that. Schuster explains: “The capital markets will not accept greenwashing and the taxonomy will lose its effect.”
The aim of the EU taxonomy is – in addition to providing investor orientation – to steer private capital into economic activities that contribute to making the EU climate-neutral by 2050. At the same time, the criteria of the taxonomy will probably also be used as a benchmark for public spending for climate protection purposes, so that ultimately tax money will also flow into the expansion of nuclear power and gas projects.
According to Schuster, around 150 parliamentarians would have to be persuaded in order to have a majority to reject the delegated act.
After the Commission has presented the delegated act, the Council and Parliament have four months to object. If desired, this deadline can be extended by another two months, so that the opponents of the taxonomy have until the beginning of August to organize a majority.
At the same time, it is said in Brussels that there is a tendency in both institutions to quickly wave the project through – in order to have the delicate matter off the table.
More: Between climate and economy – Robert Habeck’s fine line.