Today, Wednesday, the European Parliament decided to give its support to the Commission’s proposal, which would include nuclear power and natural gas in the scope of environmentally friendly economic activity.
MEP and member of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament Silvia Brave (left) believes that the decision will destroy the last shreds of credibility of the EU taxonomy.
“The green label is losing its meaning, and we are losing one important tool in the fight against climate change. Classifying natural gas as a climate-sustainable investment is absurd,” says Modig in the press release.
Modig underlines that natural gas is a fossil fuel that, in addition to carbon dioxide emissions, leaks methane, a greenhouse gas, almost throughout its entire production chain.
“Adding natural gas to the taxonomy for a limited time is a purely political compromise, which is used to try to sell climate decisions to those member countries that are fighting back,” Modig states.
Among others, the coalition also voted in favor of the objection, i.e. against the inclusion of nuclear power and natural gas Sirpa Pietikäinen. Pietikäinen announced his decision yesterday on social media.
“The delegated act should be returned to the commission for preparation,” Pietikäinen wrote on Twitter.
Gas and nuclear power were bundled together
According to Modig, the vote was decided by bundling natural gas and nuclear power into the same act.
If this had not been the case, according to him, many MEPs would probably have voted against the inclusion of natural gas.
The bundling of nuclear power and fossil natural gas is also brought up by a member of the European parliament Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (sd), who says he abstained for this reason.
“I support classifying nuclear power within the scope of taxonomy, as an emission-free energy, it cannot be left to be equated with coal and oil. However, it was wrong to include gas in the same package, that’s why I voted no,” writes Kumpula-Natri on Twitter.
MEP from the center Elsi Katainen believes that the parliament’s decision will bring “stability and continuity to investments in the energy sector towards a carbon-neutral society”. In his publication, however, he hopes for a clearer and more transparent preparation from the Commission in the future.
“EU taxonomy should be a science-based system”
According to Modig, the taxonomy blessed by Parliament now puts natural gas in competition with renewable energy for the same investments.
“Private capital must be brought to speed up the green transition, because the work cannot be done with taxpayers’ money alone. It would not be enough, and it would not be right,” Modig underlines.
According to him, the inclusion of natural gas in the taxonomy can, in the worst case, justify companies to continue producing carbon emissions and reduce the motivation of industry to look for new ways to save energy.
“The EU’s taxonomy should be a science-based system that prevents corporate greenwashing, and not the other way around. It is pointless to claim that the EU is a global leader in climate policy,” Modig states.
“How on earth can we demand that others cut down on fossil fuels, when we ourselves decide that natural gas is a green investment?”
Attorney at the Brussels office of the Confederation of Business Santeri Suominen sees that European democracy has spoken, and states on his Twitter account: “You talk about greenwashing exaggeration. Taxonomy does not force anyone to do anything.”