> 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.
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.