The European Commission has labeled nuclear and gas as sustainable. Critics are calling the step “greenwashing” and say it could threaten the bloc’s bid to become climate-neutral by 2050.
https://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990#:~:text=European%20Commission%20declares%20nuclear%20and%20gas%20to%20be,the%20bloc%27s%20bid%20to%20become%20climate-neutral%20by%202050.
One good way to know someone is trustworthy is that they tell you how trustworthy (credible) they are.
In a proposal presented this Wednesday, the EU Commission stated that certain strings remained attached. For example, gas plants could only be considered green if the facility switched to low-carbon or renewable gases, such as biomass or hydrogen produced with renewable energy, by 2035.
Nuclear power plants would be deemed green if the sites can manage to safely dispose of radioactive waste. So far, worldwide, no permanent disposal site, has gone into operation though.
At a news conference in Brussels, Mairead McGuinness, the EU commissioner responsible for financial services, said her institution was not guilty of “greenwashing,” as gas and nuclear were labeled as “transitional” energy sources in the taxonomy. “Our credibility is still strong,” McGuinness added.
https://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990#:~:text=European%20Commission%20declares%20nuclear%20and%20gas%20to%20be,the%20bloc%27s%20bid%20to%20become%20climate-neutral%20by%202050.
Not everyone was happy.
Environmental organizations most certainly see this critically, saying the proposal could jeopardize the EU’s aim to reach climate neutrality by 2050. The Climate Action Network Europe wrote that the EU Commission “sacrifices the scientific integrity of the taxonomy on the altar of fossil gas and nuclear lobbies” and failed to “reorient financial flows towards genuinely climate-positive investments.”
https://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990#:~:text=European%20Commission%20declares%20nuclear%20and%20gas%20to%20be,the%20bloc%27s%20bid%20to%20become%20climate-neutral%20by%202050.
It’s a comprehensive article and well worth a read.
What happens next?
The European Commission’s taxonomy proposal will now be reviewed by the 27 EU member states and by the European Parliament.
As the EU’s executive opted for a delegated act, a type of fast-track legislative procedure, only a total of 20 EU countries, or a majority of EU lawmakers at the European Parliament, would be able to reject it.
While EU states are not likely to turn down the taxonomy, a win in the European Parliament is not yet certain. Parliamentarians from across the political spectrum have expressed anger over the inclusion of fossil gas and nuclear power in the EU taxonomy.
Green lawmaker Rasmus Andresen said he was “disappointed” by the proposal, adding that the Green parliamentary fraction would fight hard to gather a majority against the taxonomy.
German Social Democrat Joachim Schuster told DW he thought it possible that the European Parliament could vote against the act.
And even if lawmakers were to support it, there is another threat looming: Austria and Luxembourg have already threatened to sue the European Commission over the taxonomy rules.
https://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990#:~:text=European%20Commission%20declares%20nuclear%20and%20gas%20to%20be,the%20bloc%27s%20bid%20to%20become%20climate-neutral%20by%202050.
The CLIMATE ALARMISTS — which, obviously, include the European Commission and their ANTI-LIBERTY globalist Rat Minions — are making this up as they go along; where, IOW, they are not acting on any principle, but, rather, on SELF-SERVING political expediency; that is, whatever, biding their time, ultimately provides to them as much personal power as possible.
They have absolutely NO INTEREST in protecting the rights of their citizens; rather, they are interested in accumulating more — much more — of such centralized top-down power and control.
The “science” — which, to them, is nothing more than a tool for disseminating their megalomaniacal propaganda — is whatever they say it is. They know — they’ve conducted the pols regarding opinions and/or ignorance of many of their “subjects”.
Such people in positions of govt power — especially those who are afforded MASSIVE govt power, about which the average citizen has minimal defense — MUST be held to a higher standard; however, based on the decades-long actions of these alarmists, it is apparent that THEY KNOW there will be little if any, personal accountability.
These authoritarians KNOW that very little, if anything, will upset their growing criminal fiefdoms — they KNOW that few of the masses understand the Social Contract that needs to exist between the elected leaders and the masses — unless a majority of the people rise up and hold accountable these anti-liberty monsters.
If only amongst the natural resources of the planet we could find a naturally occurring, organic and biodegradable source of energy with a really high energy density…ideally one that was made from sunlight and plants and is therefore also vegetarian and vegan compatible.
Surely all the environmentally concerned people would love it?
/sarc tag?
Seemed pretty darned sarcastic to me. Pretty certain from the manner in which it was worded… sarcasm is obvious to those who recognize it from long ago education.
I have to presume your tongue is firmly planted in cheek, Thinking Scientist.
What you describe as the “perfect source of energy” is petroleum – and all its derivatives.
I just assumed a sarc tag. I’m sorry you didn’t.
Richard – with your insight, you should have seen my “wink and a nod” responding to ThinkingScientist 😉
Yeah. My comment wasn’t as straightforward as it seems at first glance either.
«We want something that actually works, so we need to create another unprincipled exception. But we are virtuous, honestly, so not too much. But yes, but no, but yes.»
And nebulous lobbies of the dark forces threaten all that’s pure and crazy, as usual.
How many EU bureaucrats does it take to change a lightbulb?
Gee, I’m so old that I remember we were “saving trees” when we chose plastics. Now burning trees is “green” and “sustainable”, as long as we don’t burn that biomass(wood, peat, coal) in our homes to keep from freezing. How stupid can Western govts get?
Is that a legitimate question? Like the weather, it’s uncertain.
“Environmental organizations most certainly see this critically, saying the proposal could jeopardize the EU’s aim to reach climate neutrality by 2050”
These green devils are disgusting. “climate neutrality”, what on earth is that? Nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan made out of whole cloth and completely meaningless. These are truly bad people.
“Critics are calling the step “greenwashing” Only way they can reduce CO2 and/or climate change in the next 30 years is by allowing the use of Nuclear and NG. To not allow the use of Nuclear and NG proves climate Change, Global Warming, etc., is Bovine Excrement (BS). PERIOD. If they do not allow Nuclear and NG also proves that GND is being done only for Economic upheaval.
If it upsets the “environmental organisations”, I’m happy!
Next Stop will be at Green-Coal.
This was inevitable. They had no choice. Their green insanity was approaching dire and suicidal levels.
I suspect others will follow.
Here in loony Oregon hydro is not considered green(renewable). Let alone nuke or gas. If it were the state would already meet their renewables goal.
https://www.oregon.gov/energy/energy-oregon/Pages/Renewable-Portfolio-Standard.aspx
The US Energy Information admin. disagrees with the state
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=OR
The EU greenies need gas and nuke to bail them out of their own madness.
But they have always considered hydro to be renewable.
I wonder how US greenies will adapt.
“I wonder how US greenies will adapt.” What? After they stop screaming? Could be a while to wait.
“to become climate-neutral by 2050.” I am likely a little slow, but, what the hell is “climate neutral”?????
It’s political double-speak for sleight of hand and spin where they appear to appease the green woke crowd whilst only killing off the absolute minimum.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does not matter
Spray green paint on the coal. Burn coal. Problem solved.
Leftist collective types twist their own words or prior meanings to get some relief from their own policies.
I guess that’s the best we’ll get.
But if coal becomes “green” in the lexicon of the left, I’ll be happy and we can get on with things.
I have always said that green aspirations will eventually collide with engineering reality
France continues to produce the majority of it’s electricity via nuclear plants and it has 4 of the 6 LNG ports in Europe. Two are very high capacity LNG ports. So what happened to the EU’s 2009-2010 push to phase out nuclear power? The French liked the NG powered 2 their turbine generation systems. They also are expanding CNG for vehicles with 27 CNG stations.
Greenwashing is a utilitarian energy policy approach to positioning green political correctness. A couple of months ago we witnessnessed Canada’s Trudeau greenwash the exportation of Alberta oil sands. Climate has become a system of political correctness, political leveraging, taxation and political smoke and mirrors. The EU countries that took their greenness seriously, like Germany are in trouble. Gazprom was never a reliable business partner. We must remember that the climate propaganda is meant for the masses…. to inoculate and mobilize them with fear so the system has political support. If it were possible, it would be fun to poll the WEF elite to find out if they actually believe in all the climate change threats…. I serious doubt it.
They would lie to keep the scam going. But it’s damned obvious they don’t believe it one little bit.
Why is Germany antinuclear?
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2022/04/09/why-is-germany-anti-nuclear/