The EU Commission has caused horror among environmentalists and opponents of nuclear power with plans to indirectly support modern nuclear and gas power plants. Organizations like Greenpeace and WWF accused the Brussels authority at the weekend of sending a completely wrong signal and undermining their own climate targets. Violent criticism and threats of legal action also came from Austria.
Specifically, the plans of the EU Commission provide that planned investments in new nuclear power plants (AKW) in countries such as France, Poland and the Netherlands can be classified as sustainable if the systems meet the latest technology standards and a specific plan for a waste disposal system for highly radioactive waste is submitted by 2050 at the latest. In addition, it should be a condition that the new facilities receive a building permit by 2045.
Investments in new gas-fired power plants should also be able to be classified as sustainable, especially at Germany’s request. For example, it would be relevant how many greenhouse gases are emitted and whether the systems can also be operated with green hydrogen or low-carbon gas by 2035 at the latest.
There has been a dispute regarding how to deal with nuclear and gas power for months. For example, Germany spoke out once morest including nuclear power in the taxonomy, but at the same time fought for a green label for gas as a necessary transition technology. For countries like France, on the other hand, nuclear power is a key technology for a carbon-free economy. It might have done without the inclusion of gas. The move by the EU Commission is therefore seen by critics as a lazy compromise and a concession to the interests of countries such as France and Germany.
At least Austria wants to leave no stone unturned in order to stop the advance and is threatening to go to the European Court of Justice. “If these plans are implemented in this way, we will sue,” announced climate protection minister Leonore Gewessler (Greens). The starting point might be a legal opinion according to which, according to the Taxonomy Ordinance, nuclear power does not meet the requirements for a sustainable investment.
For Austria, however, according to Gewessler, it is very clear: “Neither nuclear power nor the burning of fossil natural gas have lost anything in the taxonomy. Because they are harmful to the climate and the environment and destroy the future of our children.”
Finance Minister Magnus Brunner (ÖVP) also expressed regret. “We have always emphasized that, from our point of view, nuclear power is not a sustainable form of energy and should not be included in the taxonomy regulation.”
“That is the completely wrong signal and goes once morest our efforts for a real sustainable energy turnaround and the goals of the Green Deal,” emphasized the SPÖ EU MP Günther Sidl, who, as a member of the EU Parliament’s Environment Committee, has objected to the submission of the EU Commission announced.
For Othmar Karas (ÖVP), Vice President of the EU Parliament, the template is an attempt at “greenwashing”: “Nuclear energy is not and cannot be a sustainable future technology.” He campaigned among his colleagues for a joint objection from all Austrian members of the European Parliament to stop the project.
Criticism also came from the FPÖ. The EU is setting “ten years following the nuclear disaster in Fukushima a dubious sign”, criticized the liberal MEP Georg Mayer and called for a solidarity across party lines to classify nuclear energy as ecological in the EU Parliament by all means to prevent sustainable.
In Germany there was excitement in view of the decision to phase out nuclear power and the shutdown of three nuclear power plants on New Year’s Eve, mainly because of the commission’s plans for a green label for certain investments in new nuclear power plants and the extension of their service life. Labeling the “high-risk technology” nuclear energy as sustainable is wrong, commented Economics Minister Robert Habeck (Greens). Nuclear waste will pollute the EU for centuries. It is still questionable whether Germany would join Austria’s lawsuit.
Development Minister Svenja Schulze (SPD) said: “Nuclear power is too risky, too expensive and too slow to help the world with climate protection.” In Germany, the nuclear power plants in Brokdorf, Grohnde and Gundremmingen were shut down at the turn of the year. The three very last German Akw near Landshut, in Emsland and near Heilbronn are to follow at the end of the year.
The classification of economic activities by the EU Commission as part of the so-called taxonomy is intended to enable investors to convert their investments to more sustainable technologies and companies, and thus make a significant contribution to Europe’s climate neutrality by 2050. It is expected that it will have far-reaching effects, as projects classified as sustainable are likely to be much easier and cheaper to finance.
The Brussels authority said at the weekend that the taxonomy would enable the member states to “move from their very different starting positions in the direction of the common goal of climate neutrality”. This is why solutions that seem less “green” at first glance might also be useful. Investments in natural gas and nuclear energy might help accelerate the switch to energy sources with lower emissions.
The EU member states now have until January 12 to comment on the draft. According to the EU Commission, its implementation can only be prevented if at least 20 EU states come together, representing at least 65 percent of the total population of the EU, or at least 353 members of the EU Parliament. This is considered unlikely, however, as only Austria, like Germany, Luxembourg, Denmark and Portugal, are the only ones who speak out clearly once morest taking up nuclear power and a sufficiently large majority once morest the planned gas regulations is not in sight.
In Italy, the ruling Lega party is now even pressing for a new referendum on a return to nuclear power.
