Robert Habeck has chosen a piquant time for his first visit to Brussels. The Economics and Climate Protection Minister from the Greens exchanged views with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Tuesday. In the coming days, their authority will pass a controversial legal act that is intended to declare investments in nuclear and gas-fired power plants sustainable. Shares in nuclear and gas companies could then be found in green funds. The federal government vehemently rejects the green seal for nuclear reactors, but at the same time demands more relaxed conditions for gas-fired power plants from the Commission. But the idea that gas and nuclear power plants could be sustainable is completely insane.
In the case of nuclear reactors, the repository problem speaks against this classification. And gas reactors release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, albeit much less than coal-fired power plants. It is downright grotesque that the Greens, as the governing party, support the call for more gas-fired power plants to be given an eco-label.
The project is politically motivated, not scientifically justified
The delicate EU legal act is part of the so-called taxonomy. With this classification system, the Commission determines which economic activities are climate and environmentally friendly. It has to be green washing prevent the bad habit of companies or investment funds selling themselves as greener than they are.
The ambitious and very laudable project aims to increase trust in eco-finance products and thus attract more money from investors. But the Commission’s fatal – politically and not scientifically motivated – plan to also include nuclear and gas-fired power plants will shake credibility and acceptance among investors and fund companies.
The authority has bowed to pressure from member states such as France, which otherwise fear disadvantages in the financing of nuclear reactors. And the pressure from governments like Germany, which wants to use gas-fired power plants to close the gap that will be created by shutting down nuclear and later coal-fired power plants.
The German phase-out of nuclear power cannot be a role model
In fact, there is no doubt that the EU needs investments in nuclear and gas power plants as a bridging technology on the way to a climate-friendly energy supply. Because the member states must quickly say goodbye to the particularly climate-damaging coal-fired power plants. At the same time, the demand for electricity will increase enormously, for example because of the triumph of electric cars. But the fact that these investments in nuclear and gas-fired power plants are indispensable and temporarily great for the climate does not make them sustainable – and make them candidates for eco-financial products.
The Commission should appreciate the important role that nuclear energy and gas play in the fight against global warming. But this must be done in a different way and must not devalue the green taxonomy. Of course, many Germans find any praise for nuclear power plants repugnant. However, most EU partners are more relaxed here. And Germany’s rigorous nuclear phase-out does not seem particularly worthy of imitation so far: the shutdown of the last nuclear power plants only means that Germany has to burn the climate killer coal for longer and becomes more dependent on Russian gas and French nuclear power imports. That cannot be a role model for Europe.