Natural gas and nuclear power will be renewable only if they show they are clean

They say that the most successful proposals in Brussels are those that no one likes too much because they are the ones that achieve the most consensus. This is the case of the draft to include nuclear energy and natural gas in the taxonomy, which establishes the criteria by which an investment can be considered green, which has been rejected for one reason or another by most governments, but not you should encounter too many obstacles to get ahead.

Known as ‘EU taxonomy’ is a classification system that establishes a list of economic activities that can be considered as ‘sustainable’, based on a series of criteria, with the aim of promoting investment in sectors that contribute to mitigating the effects of climate change, protection of biodiversity or the transition to a circular economy. Although the legislation came into force in July 2020, and the first list was published in April 2021, the European Commission decided to delay the classification of nuclear energy and natural gas.

The text, which Brussels announced that it would present at the end of 2021, reached the edge of midnight on December 31 in the mailboxes of the delegations of the 27 EU member states. In it, the Commission recognizes the value of both nuclear energy and natural gas as ‘transition’ energies. That is to say, It is recognized that they are not clean but their importance in the path towards the domination of renewables is highlighted that ensures the total decarbonisation of the economy, as it is a source of low emissions.

The draft, to which you have had access the Economist, includes conditions and time limits. In the case of nuclear energy, only plants that can ensure that “no significant damage” is caused to the environment, including with regard to waste disposal, will be considered sustainable. In addition, this would apply to new plants approved for construction before 2045. In the case of gas, producers must ensure that the level of carbon emissions is a maximum of 100 grams per kilowatt in existing plants and 270 grams per kilowatt in new construction, and the recognition will expire in 2030.

The Commission proposal seems an attempt to reconcile the main positions in the debate: France, the largest producer of nuclear energy in the EU, and Germany, which plans to close its plants in 2030 and has been helped greatly by gas in its transition to energy production based on renewables. Eastern countries such as Poland or the Czech Republic also support Paris, as they have opted for nuclear energy in their decarbonisation strategy.

Meanwhile, Spain, Austria, Luxembourg and Denmark, who are opposed to both, are committed to renewable energies, and flatly reject the Commission’s proposal, claiming that it seriously jeopardizes the credibility of the EU, which aspired to be a world reference in the definition of green investments, and also undermines emission reduction targets.

The Commission has launched a consultation with the Twenty-seven on the basis of which it will shape the final proposal that should arrive at the end of the month. Once the final text is on the table, the governments meeting in the Council and the European Parliament could reject it. In the European Parliament, it seems impossible.

In the Council, to do it a qualified majority would be required in reverse. That is, 20 countries or enough countries representing at least 65% of the European population oppose. No matter how much discomfort the proposal causes, the chances of achieving it are slim, since the text represents a victory for both sides, although neither likes the other to win, and the frontal opposition is a minority.