EU Taxonomy Debates on Gas and Nuclear Investments Continue as Parliament Rejects Brussels Proposal
The European Commission’s plan to grant a green label to certain gas and nuclear energy investments faced a setback as the environment and economic affairs committees of the European Parliament rejected Brussels’ proposal to classify these activities as environmentally sustainable under the EU taxonomy. This marks the first major political obstacle to the plan, which had been put forward at the start of the year under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen. The Parliament’s rejection came with a vote tally of 76 in favor, 62 against, and several abstentions. The final determination now lies with the general assembly at its upcoming session in early July. Should an absolute majority of 353 votes out of 705 members oppose the plan, Brussels will be compelled to withdraw or amend its proposal.
Climate neutrality remains the guiding objective and a commitment that must be fulfilled. Authorities insist on employing all available tools to shift away from carbon-intensive energy sources and curb emissions. They acknowledge the sensitivity of the issue and the diverse positions among member states and lawmakers. There is a sense of urgency to advance policy measures that support a transition while balancing energy security. A European Commission spokesperson noted the result and emphasized that one of the two co-legislators, either the European Council or the European Parliament, could choose to reject the proposal. Von der Leyen’s spokesperson added that speculation about next steps would be premature.
The Brussels-backed plan proposed that investments in gas-fired power plants would be deemed sustainable as long as the plants operate with renewable energy sources by 2035. In the case of nuclear power, investments would carry the sustainable label through 2035, and for existing facilities, potential renewals could extend the label through 2040 to 2045. The Commission has conceded that, in its view, these activities are not climate-neutral in themselves, but it argues that they are necessary today to facilitate the broader transition to climate neutrality by 2050, allowing favorable investment conditions to accelerate the shift.
Insufficient Offer
MEPs recognize that nuclear power and gas can help stabilize energy supply during the transition to a sustainable economy. However, they also contend that the technical criteria proposed by the European Commission to justify inclusion do not meet the standards required for environmentally sustainable economic activities. A member of En Común commented that it was unacceptable for gas and nuclear investments to be labeled as sustainable energies and urged the plenary to take decisive action. He underscored the urgency of securing a final decision in the upcoming session and urged all groups to show the necessary ambition for EU environmental rules.
Socialists echoed the call to withdraw the proposal, arguing that while gas and nuclear may be necessary to meet energy needs and support the transition, neither is genuinely green or sustainable. They insisted that the plan should not designate them as appropriate for sustainability classification. Simona Bonafé, vice president of the Socialists and Democrats group, expressed the view that this classification would mislead policy goals even as the EU strives for a climate-neutral future.
The debate has extended beyond Parliament to the member states, revealing a broad spectrum of positions. Countries like the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Austria have expressed resistance to including gas in the green taxonomy, while Austria and Luxembourg oppose labeling nuclear energy as green. Others, including France, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, have shown greater openness to the idea. The rules governing devolution prevent either the Parliament or governments from changing the proposal outright, but a strong majority can still block it. In the Council, unlike in Parliament, a qualified majority is required. In practice, at least 72% of member states representing 65% of the population (no fewer than 20 of the 27 member states) must oppose the proposal. For the Parliament, an absolute majority of 353 MEPs is necessary to block or modify the plan.