this plan European Commission label investments green gas Y nuclear energy will live this wednesday the last great litmus test For both proponents and opponents of the proposal conceived by Ursula von der Leyen’s team, it is in a final vote where the plenary session of the European Parliament is divided and every vote will be crucial. assumes that both energies are “ecologically bleached”.. “This is what we need to do, given the urgency of moving away from Russian fossil energy,” said Internal Market Commissioner Mairead McGuinness during a long debate in which she urged members of the European Parliament to be realistic and pragmatic. . “We need to invest more in the renewable sector, but we have to be realistic and accept that we will have to invest in gas and nuclear in the energy transition,” he warned.
Less than a month ago, the environment and economic affairs commissions have already launched the first warning, rejecting the proposal to include both energies in the EU taxonomy as environmentally sustainable economic activities. On this occasion, there were 76 votes in favor and 62 against to overturn the Commission’s intentions. The bar for success this Wednesday will be much higher. This means that those who reject the green label will have to add 353 of the 705 votes that make up the plenary. According to European Parliament sources, it’s a “complicated” result, if not impossible, according to lawmakers taking part in Tuesday’s vote.
According to the distribution of forces and positions reflected during the parliamentary debate, Renewal Liberals and European Conservatives and Reformists will vote in favor of the community proposal. Moreover The plan will be approved by EU member states as well as many delegations from the European People’s Party. extreme right. “Many here believe in a seamless energy transition. Nuclear is a useful transition technology because it emits no CO2 and gas emits half as much CO2 as coal,” said Luis Garicano, spokesman for Ciudadanos.
Pilar del Castillo, the former minister of the PP, also spoke in favor, saying that to achieve neutrality by 2050 it would be “necessary” to have emission-free gas and nuclear, and in any case the proposal doesn’t mean “blank check” because “in the case of natural gas, new plants that will only produce electricity that replaces others that use more polluting fuels are considered sustainable by 2030, while in the case of nuclear” it is considered simply the dismantling of power plants that have a fund as well as nuclear waste facilities” . Part of this bloc justified its support because of the crisis situation and the war in Russia.
“they are not green”
Arguments rejected by the left, greens or social democrats who repeat that natural gas is a fossil fuel and that nuclear power boosts nuclear power even though it does not emit CO2, nuclear waste problem. The French environmentalist said, “Gas and nuclear are not green. For reliability reasons, they should be excluded from the green taxonomy. How can we choose an energy that is unmanageable and presents waste that will be a burden for future generations?” Michele Rivasi.
“The Tassonomy regulation was born to establish a European framework to define what is green and what is not. The introduction of nuclear energy and gas within this framework, a stone that undermines the credibility of our arrangementability to become an international standard. Socialist Jonás Fernández added: “They want gas and nuclear to become green energy by decree. “They are beyond their power,” attacked Sira Rego of the United Left. McGuinness appreciated the “good arguments” advanced during the debate, but fell thirteen. His proposal will lead neither to “ecological laundering” nor to the pollution of the “far west.” If the delegated bill is rejected, I will be here to accept the result of the vote” but “I agree with the realistic and pragmatic. Reject the appeal proposal. It is important for our future,” he said.