The NGO’s complaint is added to those also announced by Austria and Luxembourg, which firmly reject that fossil gas and atomic energy be placed at a level equivalent to renewable generation sources
The environmental organization Greenpeace announced this Thursday that it will denounce the European Commission before the community justice for classifying as sustainable certain investments in nuclear power and gasconsidering that they violate the obligations of the European Union under the Paris Agreement.
The decision to bring the case before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) responds to the fact that the Commission has formally rejected a request processed by Greenpeace last September “to abandon greenwashing of fossil gas and nuclear power“The organization said in a statement.
The NGO’s complaint is added to those also announced by Austria and Luxembourg, which firmly reject that fossil gas and atomic energy are placed at an equivalent level renewable generation sources in the rules of the so-called “green financial taxonomy”.
It is a set of classifications without immediate practical application that are intended to guide future financial investments in the ecological transition, which in this case affect energy but will also be deployed in sectors such as forestry, transport or agriculture.
“Technologically neutral”
After years of internal deliberations, the European Commission, which defines itself as “technologically neutral“, presented in February 2022 a “delegated act” in which it considered certain investments in nuclear energy and gas power plants as sustainable in a classification that purports to guide future investment.
Germany pressed in favor of gas and France for nuclear in the debate on these rules drawn up by the European Commission and approved by the Council of the EU and by the European Parliament. Specifically, the classification validates nuclear power plants with construction permits as “sustainable”. before 2045 and gas plants that emit less than 270 grams of CO2 per kilowatt/hour until 2031 or less than 100 grams in their entire useful life.
Greenpeace, on the other hand, considers that fossil fuels cannot be considered “transitory”as described in the taxonomy, because such infrastructure “could remain in operation beyond the EU’s 2050 deadline to achieve the energy transition”, which contravenes the EU Climate Law.
Nuclear energy
Regarding nuclear energy, the NGO argues that it violates the principle of “do not cause significant harm” on which the regulation is based, since “the emissions of the life cycle of nuclear energy, the extraction of uranium, the high use of water, the discharge of hot water and the large-scale generation of radioactive waste violate this principle”.
He also criticizes that nuclear takes away space for investments in renewable sources and that the long execution of the plants leads to delaying the elimination of coal-fired power plants.
Also points out that atomic energy is “very affected by adverse climatic phenomenasuch as heat waves and droughts” and can be “the object of a terrorist or military attack”. The debate on the role of nuclear energy in the energy transition is not limited to taxonomy and also finds friction in the definition that should be given to “green hydrogen”.
France wants hydrogen produced from electricity to be considered “green” of atomic origin (the so-called pink hydrogen), while Germany or Spain consider that only that generated from renewable sources should be treated as “green”.