Greenpeace is going to the European Court of justice if the European Commission does not refrain from granting a green label to natural gas and nuclear energy. The environmental organization has given the commission an ultimatum.
From 1 January, the European Union will recognise some forms of power generation and heating from natural gas and nuclear energy as sustainable. They are given a green stamp in the classification system that serves as a guide for investors and investors.
But the EU goes against its own rules for that classification system, the so-called taxonomy, says Greenpeace. In addition, it would violate the European Climate Law and the agreements in the Paris climate agreement.
The sustainable label for the fossil gas and the ever-controversial nuclear energy, with the support of the EU countries and the European Parliament, was already hard fought. Proponents argue that gas and nuclear power plants are still needed in the coming years to replace the even more climate-unfriendly coal-fired power plants as long as the EU does not yet have enough real renewable energy. And nuclear power plants, which do not emit greenhouse gases such as CO2, can also come in handy afterwards if, for example, the wind and The Sun fail.
The opponents object that the transition to solar and wind energy, for example, slows down if plenty of money is still invested in gas and nuclear power plants. Moreover, Brussels would never be able to say anything about it if another country opted for gas power plants.
Eight European Greenpeace departments have now told the commission that it has until February to reconsider and reconsider the issue. If it persists, Greenpeace will bring a case to the European Court of Justice. Austria and Luxembourg had already announced that they would challenge the new taxonomy. Still other nature and environmental organizations have now taken to court in protest against yet another labelling, that for biomass.
If energy from gas and nuclear power plants had not received a green stamp, it certainly would not have been banned. But investors such as banks and pension funds might then have pulled their hands off it.