EU position on gas and nuclear energy:
The controversy on the EU Taxonomy
Gas and nuclear energy have been classified by the European Commission as sustainable investments for the energetic transition in the EU Taxonomy (a classification system that aims to guide private investment to activities that are needed to achieve climate neutrality and economic decarbonisation).
But why are those considered sustainable investments?
The European Commission considers there is a crucial role for private investment in gas and nuclear activities in the transition. More precisely, they think that focusing the investments here rather than on petrol and carbon would help the transition while waiting for the renewable energy broadcast and development.
The gas and nuclear activities selected are in line with the EU’s climate and environmental objectives and will allow the shifting acceleration from activities such as coal generation, towards a climate-neutral future, mostly based on renewable energy sources.
To be considered sustainable, gas and nuclear have to follow some conditions, but the choice raised a debate.
The opposition has seen the EU Commission’s decision as an act that disowns the Green Deal’s goal toward climate emergency. UE advisors recognize the help towards the decarbonisation goals that gas and nuclear energy give. However, they don’t think taxonomy is the right place to promote them, and they state that other legal acts could be used instead.
The dispute arises here: investing in gas and nuclear, and classifying those investments as sustainable (or better, useful to sustainable transition), is or not greenwashing?
The EU Commission, putting the two controversial energy sources inside the taxonomy, doesn’t want to impose any investments. The aim is to suggest an investing transition from carbon-fossil towards lower impact energy sources. It has to be pointed out that this is not a free-arguing issue. Indeed, we are talking about something that has a big difference from what clean energy really is. Just take for example the significant influence natural gas has over the increasing greenhouse gas concentration, responsible for the climate crisis. The CO2 emissions, caused by the combustion of natural gas, are more or less 74% of the ones caused by petrol.
However, due to the relatively lower impact and its quality, through the discussed Taxonomy, it will be possible to benefit from investments redirection.
Nuclear energy has CO2 zero impact, but it’s not considered a green energy source due to Uranium, which is technically non-renewable. In addition, nuclear waste and the catastrophic impact of possible malfunctions, won’t ensure the sustainability of this energetic source. Nevertheless, it has a lot of potential and good investments in research that want to develop non-catastrophic slag-free nuclear energy.
It is difficult to state the accuracy of the choice made. We can’t exactly assess if the benefits of this decision will benefit the technical or the strategic aspects. However, we have to point out that the Taxonomy deals with investment suggestions. Moreover, those are meant to help the transition towards what green energy is. It is not a document that states what sources are green and what is not.
For these reasons we have to contribute, how it is possible, to the transition.
Sofia Ragni
JEE Public Affairs Managers 2021/22
