The EU Parliament passed a bill Wednesday that made it possible to label fossil gas and nuclear power as "green" in the Commission's taxonomy, provoking an outcry from all European political groups. The Parliament adopted the European Commission's proposal first published on the 2022 New Year's Eve. The Greens opposed it, but also the Social Democrats (S&D), the radical left (GUE), some liberals (RE), and Christian Democrats (PPE). Going against the positions expressed by scientists, the majority of MEPs approved the greenwashing operation proposed by the European Commission in a 328-278 vote, with 33 lawmakers abstaining.

Opponents of this taxonomy call it "greenwashing". The gas, when burning, emits significant amounts of CO2. As for nuclear power, it is free of CO2 but generates waste for which no lasting solution exists.

Two parliamentary committees rejected this taxonomy. However, there was a majority in the plenary to approve it. This is explained by the fact that France and Germany, the two largest suppliers of deputies, are authoring this bill, the objective of which is to protect their national industries.

This classification seems surreal, but its scope must be put into perspective. The taxonomy comes with conditions that do not make it an eternal law. It is only valid for a transitional period ending in 2045. Gas and nuclear will only then be sustainable if new technologies are introduced. As for gas, it will have to be substituted for coal. 

Moreover, the taxonomy is not a mandatory rule. Economic actors have the right to choose the energies in which they will invest with regard to the climate issue. Investors have their own rules for assessing risk and what is, or is not, sustainable. And this is the limit of the intrusion of politics into the functioning of the market.

According to Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners, European natural gas prices have skyrocketed by about 700% since the first of the year. To bring prices back to "fair" levels, many European countries are seeking to establish long-term deals, including LNG shipments from the US, Qatar, and other nations. However, these contracts happen to contradict Europe's goals of curtailing global warming. This did not stop some governments that have espoused very green values from signing 20-year contracts for LNG.

In retrospect, this move could reflect the EU's aspirations to turn to alternatives to Russian gas following the implementation of EU and US sanctions on Russia. The EU is seeking to buy gas on a massive scale from countries other than Russia (including via Russian gas resellers) but the supply remains limited and the gas ships remain insufficient to transport productions to the EU when they are already mobilized on other contracts.