European Union lawmakers voted Wednesday to incorporate natural gas and nuclear power as “green” energy sources, joining the EU’s taxonomy, despite avid protest from environmental activists and organizations threatening legal action.
The EU’s taxonomy is a classification system that defines which economic activities can be labeled as environmentally friendly and, therefore, be deemed sustainable investments. Previously, natural gas and nuclear energy projects weren’t on the EU’s taxonomy list, but the parliament vote of 328 to 279 has streamlined its way into becoming law. Nuclear power and its fossil fuel counterpart, natural gas, will now enjoy the benefits of green labeling unless vetoed—which is highly unlikely.
With nuclear power and natural gas under a green label, investors can funnel money into these projects with the potential to receive subsidies and cheap loans, thereby expanding the lifespan of fossil fuels in the EU’s energy mix. However, the EU taxonomy does impose emission limits, as well as forcing gas plants to transition to low-carbon gases by 2035.
The original intent of the taxonomy was to guide investor attention to green activities so that the EU could achieve its carbon neutral emission goal by 2050. However, critics argue that it’s promoting greenwashing, which the taxonomy is supposed to prevent. This is exemplified by natural gas. The European Commission calls natural gas a “low emission” fuel, which is only true in comparison to coal, not compared to other forms of renewable energy such as wind and solar.
Climate activists, and those who oppose this decision, argue that investments that will go toward nuclear and natural gas projects should instead be invested in renewable energy sources. Wind and solar have zero emissions and are green, environmentally friendly sources of energy that would help fulfill the EU’s climate goals.
Those in favor of the decision, however, see this as a large win, claiming that investments in nuclear power and natural gas are necessary for the EU’s energy transition. Advocates claim this approach is a realistic avenue to achieve climate neutrality by slowly phasing out coal.
Regardless of the benefits, critics still see this as “dirty politics.” Additionally, natural gas emits methane, a potent and harmful greenhouse gas, and the environmental friendliness of nuclear power is still highly debated. Wind and solar energy, on the other, emit zero carbon and are optimal solution to generate clean energy.
This decision is harmful to the environment, and environmentalists are cautious that this could set a legal precedent. This could blur the classification of what projects or economic activities are environmentally friendly and what aren’t. Though this decision is among the EU, it could influence other countries. Experts warn that this decision can have harrowing consequences, such as being the foundation for other countries to concur with its ruling, labeling polluting sources as green. Therefore, this allows more countries the ability to claim the need to make a slower transition to renewable energy. This would ultimately slow the global transition to renewable energy, hindering the ability to fulfill the Paris Climate Accords and stay below 1.5 degrees (celsius).
Additionally, the United States has already been misleading on the climate front, as Biden has begun to go back on his climate campaign promises. Last Friday, Biden announced his offshore drilling proposal that would allow 11 lease sales for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. This proposal is focused on lowering high gas prices. However, these leases wouldn’t be in effect until late next year.
The Biden Administration’s actions are an example of government reluctance to swiftly transition away from fossil fuels. To meet global climate commitments, both the US and the EU, as well as other major polluter countries, must keep their promises. Although just transitions need to occur, relying upon and glorifying natural gas as green is not necessary.