Shortly before the decision, the opponents of the controversial taxonomy beat the big drum. “Call the MPs in the constituencies. Remain factual, have the better arguments for the taxonomy and get into conversation with them,” appealed the CDU member of the European Parliament and environmental politician Peter Liese during an event on the Internet.
The unrest among the MEPs is unusually large. Because they have it in their hands this Wednesday at the plenary session in Strasbourg to thwart the plans of the EU Commission, which wants to classify investments in nuclear power and gas as climate-friendly. For months, the opponents of this so-called taxonomy had collected votes for their project. What initially seemed completely hopeless is now unexpectedly within reach. Most recently, the environmental and economic committees of the EU Parliament narrowly rejected the taxonomy in its present form.
“We now have around 290 MPs who will vote against it,” said Michael Bloss (Greens). But that is not enough, because an absolute majority of 353 votes in the 705-seat parliament is needed this Wednesday. But there is great confidence that the many undecided MEPs will be able to vote against the paper.
The bitter argument about the taxonomy broke out last New Year’s Eve. The EU Commission published the highly controversial paper just a few hours before midnight. The taxonomy is intended to give investors and banks a guide as to which technology is to be classified as sustainable in terms of climate. It is therefore of great importance for the financial sector, but also for Germany as a whole, since more and more investors only want to invest in green technologies. Mainly at the urging of France, nuclear power was included in the taxonomy, Germany campaigned for gas.
The parliamentarians were annoyed by what they saw as an almost autocratic approach by the Commission. Many MPs then made their own position clear. It turned out that the boundaries on this topic cut across factions and country groups. Even many of the conservative MPs, who are considered very pro-business, reject the proposed guidelines.
“There is simply no appetite on the market for a taxonomy with nuclear energy and gas,” explained Markus Ferber (CSU) after the vote in the Economic Committee. The CSU MEP is economic policy spokesman for the EPP group in the European Parliament. “A taxonomy that is not accepted by the market is not worth the paper it is written on,” is his damning conclusion.
The Greens, who are the only group in the European Parliament to reject the proposal unanimously, have been given a new security argument after Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Europe’s quick farewell to gas is not only better for the climate, but also ends the fatal dependence on Russian energy imports.
However, the EU Commission did not only fuel the rebellion of the MPs with the provocative timing of the publication. The taxonomy was created as a so-called delegated act. This means that Parliament and the Member States do not have to approve the legal act. You can only block him by objecting. But that has also outraged many of the deputies, because they simply felt ignored. “The EU Commission must learn that it cannot bypass Parliament and must take our proposals seriously,” said SPD MP Joachim Schuster.
In Berlin, at the turn of the year, within the traffic light coalition, the Greens in particular reacted with incomprehension to the Commission’s taxonomy proposal. In view of the forthcoming vote in the EU Parliament, the chairman of the European Affairs Committee of the Bundestag, Anton Hofreiter (Greens), said it was important that there was a majority in Strasbourg against the Commission’s proposal. “Equating nuclear energy and natural gas with wind and solar power is climate and security policy madness,” he told the Tagesspiegel.
The planned awarding of the eco-label to nuclear power and natural gas contradicts the green transformation that Europe urgently needs now, said the Green politician. The EU must not only preserve its livelihoods, but also make itself independent of “autocrats like Putin”. If large quantities of gas and uranium continue to be imported into Europe for the nuclear industry, there will be no energy security in the EU. “Financing Putin’s war with our gas bill and selling it as a sustainable interim solution is a political mistake,” said Hofreiter.
The European policy spokesman for the SPD parliamentary group, Christian Petry, also told the Tagesspiegel that he would welcome it if the EU Parliament opposed the EU Commission’s decision to classify nuclear energy and gas as sustainable. “Even if this classification does not mean financial support, but is intended to offer financial investors non-binding orientation, it could direct capital into projects that have no permanent future,” he said in justification.
But he also has to acknowledge that opinions on the taxonomy vary widely among EU countries, Petry said. Therefore, despite Germany’s negative attitude in the Council of Ministers, where all 27 EU states are represented, there was not a sufficient majority against the Commission’s decision. Even if the classification of natural gas and nuclear as “green” energy carriers were to remain in place after the vote by the EU Parliament, “that is not satisfactory, but not the final word,” added Petry. Austria wants to take legal action before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) against the inclusion of nuclear power and gas in the taxonomy regulation.
