This also means that all the money people fought for in the last years to get countries to invest in green energy is now funelled back into non green energy. People who invest in green energy Fonds suddenly invest in gas.
I wouldn't care about the label wouldn't it destroy years of work for a better environment.
From the article: "gas-fired plants built through 2030 will be recognised as a transitional energy source as long as they are used to replace dirtier fossil fuels such as oil and coal."
"The technical screening criteria ensure that any new gas-based power/heat plant (or refurbished combined heat and power plant or heat/cool plant) is either below the technology-neutral 100g CO2/kWh life-cycle emission threshold (i.e. using Carbon Capture and Storage technologies) or meets a number of stringent conditions and obtains a construction permit by 2030." -- Questions and Answers on the EU Taxonomy Complementary Climate Delegated Act covering certain nuclear and gas activities
I've read that. A lot of the money was still ment for other projects. Essentially pausing the whole green energy effort for the next 8 years (at least)
I think it's likely a good thing if Germany and some others invest money in Gas instead of coal. Especially now.
But in no world or metric is this green energy and should be built with green energy money.
"Essentially pausing the whole green energy effort for the next 8 years (at least)" [citation needed]
It is green energy as long as the criteria are met. Even solar could be not considered green, depending on where you set the emission bar. There is no black and white. There is a long transition process, with timelines, budgets and targets.
Rules on gas are very strict. The regulation is an improvement. Some countries prefer to rely on gas than on nuclear, and there isn't much that the commission can do.
> It is green energy as long as the criteria are met.
That's what the EU Parliament are saying; but the truth is that the criteria are met if the criteria are met. Energy doesn't become "green" just because some bunch of lobbied and whipped politicians say it's green.
It is a definition, which is needed when you need to make plans and decisions, as in any other case. It does not mean that reality changes because of an agreement, of course, even if mixing the two might be tempting when trying to discredit politicians as a whole. That is an evergreen :)
Thing is, the plans and decisions have already been made, under a more stringent definition. By changing the definition, they have effectively undermined those earlier plans and decisions. That's dishonesty.
There were no plans and decisions on the taxonomy regarding gas or nuclear before, which is part of the Commission action plan on financing sustainable growth. The taxonomy still needs a final vote to pass, actually, and it does not replace any previous taxonomy or regulation. Check your sources before moving accusations.
I hope you are right and this is not just a big step in the wrong direction, just because it sounds so stupid (Neuspreching burning Gas to Green energy is nothing but that)
There is no reason to favour investments in gas. This is a political compromise to placate Germany that drove itself into a corner by not wanting to hear about nuclear for ideological reasons.
3. I disapprove of nuclear, because its proponents never budget for decommissioning; not for "ideological" reasons.
What are "ideological" reasons anyway, in this context? What ideology are you on about? You could say there's a "green ideology", I suppose, which amounts to preferring policies that don't wreck the environment. But how's that an "ideology"? Is it "ideological" to favour policies that don't result in widespread famine, or global thermonuclear war?
I'd be pro-nuclear, very much so, if plans for new plants included detailed, budgeted explanations of how and when the plant would be fully decommissioned. They never do though.
That's besides the point. To get to net zero we can't favour new investments in gas. Maybe such investments are unavoidable in some cases but that's quite different.
So, again, this is all on Germany. They should clean up their own mess themselves and drop ideological dogmas.
My guess would be Serbia, that's the typical attitude towards the EU there (not to mention not-so-subtle pro-Russian stance). The only place which sees the EU in worse light would probably be Belarus or Russia.
Generally British people wouldn't say "heart of Europe". If anything when talking about Europe they mean continental Europe and don't include the British Isles in that.
Gas likely is better than Germany still burning tons of coal every day for energy but it's not green.
That's just sad really