Dispute over taxonomy: climate neutral – but with what energy?

Nuclear power and gas as transitional technologies worthy of promotion? This plan by the EU Commission is not only met with criticism from the German government. The EU countries still have to comment on this to this day. Will the dispute end up in court?

Ursula von der Leyen sticks to her line. In a recent interview with a French radio station, the President of the Commission defended the proposal to classify nuclear power and gas as green technologies within the so-called taxonomy. The taxonomy is “a seal of approval for financial products,” explained von der Leyen. It is for private investors and gives them transparency: “It shows them whether a financial product contributes to the transition to climate neutrality.”

However, there are conditions. Gas-fired power plants should only get the green seal if they replace coal plants and switch to more climate-friendly gases such as hydrogen by 2035. Nuclear power plants must meet the latest technical standards and be approved before 2045. In addition, there must be a plan for a repository for the highly radioactive waste – from 2050 at the latest.

Von der Leyen also emphasized that each country decides its own energy mix.

The federal government is dissatisfied

In Germany in particular, however, criticism is pouring down from many quarters. The EU states have until today to comment on the Commission’s proposal. Environment Minister Steffi Lemke announced in the “Report from Berlin” that the statement would “contain a clear no to the inclusion of nuclear power in the taxonomy”. The Federal Government represents this as a whole and will transmit it to the Commission in this way.

The attitude of the federal government is less clear when it comes to gas. It is said that Germany’s wish was to temporarily give gas a green label – as part of a compromise with nuclear power advocate France and President Emmanuel Macron.

changes? Unlikely

The Commission may present its final proposal as early as next week; major changes are not expected. In order to overturn the plan, at least 20 countries would have to be found that represent 65 percent of the EU population. But that is ruled out.

Because not only France relies on nuclear power, but also Finland or countries from Eastern Europe. On the other hand, the EU Parliament could still veto it.

However, it is questionable whether the required simple majority of 353 MPs will be met. Greens like Jutta Paulus clearly reject the classification of nuclear and gas as sustainable. Her concern is that the “good idea” of a Europe-wide label for sustainable finance will be devalued.

Gas as a “transitional technology”

Critics can also be found in the European SPD and in the EPP group around the CDU and CSU, while Markus Pieper (CDU) supports the commission.

For the energy turnaround and to accompany the expansion of renewable energies, you need “a certain transitional technology” that represents “supply security”. In France and Finland, according to Pieper, “in terms of energy history” that is nuclear power. Germany, on the other hand, has politically decided in favor of gas – in this respect the Commission’s classifications are “logical”.

Pieper does not consider it completely out of the question that – for various reasons – there will be a negative majority in Parliament. And if not? Then, according to Jutta Paulus, the only thing left is going to court. Austria and Luxembourg have already threatened to sue if nuclear power actually gets a green seal.