The EU wants to combat climate change with a gas that produces climate change

This is said by environmentalists, who harshly criticize the fact that the European Commission (EC) has decided to include among the sectors to support – to combat climate change – natural gas and nuclear energy. The EC published a few minutes ago the final version of Taxonomy, the document that identifies the sectors called to help the EU achieve its climate objectives. Among these sectors, the Commission chaired by the popular Ursula Von der Leyen has decided to include natural gas and nuclear energy, which it has identified as “green”.

The Taxonomy is a classification of “economic activities substantially contributing to environmental objectives based on scientific criteria” that has been set by the European Union. What it does, roughly, is to point out which climate solutions should be benefited (regulatory, fiscally, or through investments, for example). Well, the European Commission announced today that, on its list of beneficiaries, there are natural gas and nuclear energy. Ecologists in Action, along with other environmental organizations, rejects the inclusion of these energies as green “for going,” he says, “frontally against climate goals.”

Natural gas is a fossil fuel that contributes to climate change, both by generating _CO2 emissions in combustion and by fugitive methane emissions. Methane is a gas with a global warming potential 86 times higher than that of _CO2 in the first 20 years of life. Emitting one kilogram of methane is equivalent to emitting 86 kilograms of _CO2. In addition, more and more scientific research shows that methane leaks have not been well accounted for and represent a larger climate problem than previously believed.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defines fugitive emissions as “the intentional or unintentional release of greenhouse gases during the extraction, processing and delivery of fossil fuels to the point of end use”. Bankwatch Network’s Smoke and Mirrors report, published in January last year, concludes that “fugitive emissions values in more than half of the scenarios are around the 3% threshold defined by the International Energy Agency, beyond which fossil gas ceases to offer a climate benefit compared to coal.”

Now, the Taxonomy includes natural gas. This document outlines the specific criteria that must be met to be qualified as “sustainable”. In the case of gas, according to this publication, investments in gas plants will be considered green if they produce emissions below 270 g/kWh of CO₂ equivalent per kilowatt-hour (compared to 100 g/kWh determined by experts and scientists), if they replace a more polluting fossil fuel plant and if they receive the construction permit by 2030.

On the other hand, and in relation to nuclear energy, the projects must have a plan, a site and the necessary funds to safely dispose of radioactive waste, and those that receive their construction permit in the next 23 years, until 2045, will be classified as “green”.

Sara Bourehiyi, head of the sustainable finance campaign of Ecologists in Action, has denounced that the inclusion of gas and nuclear as sustainable investments makes the taxonomy a greenwashing instrument: “the purpose was to create an instrument, based on science, that would guarantee that an investment qualified as green contributed to the necessary ecological transition and mitigate the effects of climate change. If a fossil fuel and an energy that leaves waste for millions of years are considered green, says Bourehiyi, what is not?”

Ecologists in Action joins the rejection that this document has provoked, together with numerous organizations, some Member States and from the group of experts that worked on the draft of the document, which also call for the veto of the European Parliament.

Opposition to the document

First, there is the group of experts organized in the so-called Sustainable Finance Platform, and which brings together experts from different interest groups such as representatives of the financial sector, non-financial companies, non-governmental organizations and civil society, academies and think tanks, experts in their personal capacity, as well as public and international institutions.

In relation to nuclear energy, they do not consider that the criteria guarantee a substantial contribution. They therefore reject its inclusion in the outcome document. On the other hand, this document has also met with the disapproval of some Member States, including Spain, which has sent a letter signed jointly with Austria, Denmark and Luxembourg. In it they point out their opposition to the inclusion of natural gas and nuclear energy, since “they do not meet the legal and scientific requirements established in the taxonomy to be considered sustainable economic activities.”

Another of the oppositions is that of the large investment fund managers. The IIGCC (Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change), including BlackRock and Vanguard, has published an open letter to Member States and MEPs, calling for the exclusion of gas from the taxonomy. According to this partnership, which accounts for more than €50 trillion of managed funds, the inclusion of gas would confuse their investment decisions, impede progress towards the EU’s climate goals and contradict the indications of science.

In the case of environmental organizations, there have been numerous events organized to point out the seriousness of this greenwashing, such as the “funeral” of the taxonomy or the installation of a giant dinosaur in front of the headquarters of the European Commission in Brussels, to point out the “monster” in which the document is becoming, among other demonstrations organized in recent months.

The decisive role of the European Parliament

Once the final document has been published by the Commission, it will pass into the hands of the Council and the European Parliament, which will have four months to, where appropriate, veto the document and reject the inclusion of gas and nuclear. In the case of the Council, this would be achieved if at least 20 Member States were brought together. In the case of Parliament, this rejection would be achieved with a full majority, that is, 353 Members.

If consensus is not reached by the deadline, nuclear and gas will be considered “green” energies of the EU and will be able to attract large amounts of resources, both from private investors and from public funds. In the words of Sara Bourehiyi: “Whether or not to approve the document will depend on achieving climate commitments. The fact that gas and nuclear energy are considered green is a clear brake on the energy transition.”

If approved, it would mean in practice the financing of fossil fuels until 2050, and that sectors such as nuclear and gas can obtain the same sustainability label as economic activities aimed at the construction of renewable systems.

In addition, they point out from Ecologists, the construction of new fossil infrastructures that would go against the reduction of emissions would continue to be financed, and in the same way, hundreds of tons of radioactive nuclear waste would continue to be produced for which there is no solution today.

According to the NGO, “these plans would also maintain the huge profits that these companies receive from the sky, and would greatly hinder the deployment of renewable energies necessary to face the climate emergency.”

For all these reasons, Ecologists in Action urges that the European Parliament reject this document, as it is not aligned with the climate commitments of the Paris Agreement – limiting the global average temperature by 1.5 ºC – nor with the EU’s objective of achieving climate neutrality by 2050.

Source: Renewable Energies