The draft supplementary delegated act on the EU taxonomy, sent to Member States on New Year’s Eve on Friday 31 December, has drawn criticism from many stakeholders who accuse the European Commission of greenwashing, while at the same time criticising the procedure followed by the institution.
Among them is the French MEP, Aurore Lalucq (S&D), member of the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON).
In an interview with EUROPE, Ms Lalucq said that the Commission’s plan to include nuclear power and fossil gas in the taxonomy as “transitional activities” (see EUROPE 12860/1) would greatly weaken the usefulness of the sustainable investment classification system by giving a “green label to activities that are not”.
Joining the MEP, Monique Goyens, Director General of the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), deplored “institutional greenwashing”.
“What is at stake here is not even about banning nuclear and fossil gas or not. They might be needed for the transition, but that does not mean that they should be advertised to consumers as ‘green’”, she stressed in a press release.
A victory for France
Ms Lalucq also criticises the position of France, which “has been lobbying the Commission for the past 2 years to get its nuclear power included in the taxonomy to the point of making everyone regress on fossil fuels”.
For her, French lobbying is not only “problematic” but also “completely disproportionate and incomprehensible, given that the taxonomy will not cause a sudden shift in private investment towards renewables”.
She added: “The original purpose of the taxonomy was not to prohibit banks, regrettably, from investing in fossil fuels or pesticides, nor to prevent governments from investing in nuclear or fossil gas, but simply to provide guidance to private investors as to what is a green product”.
In her view, the French pressure is therefore explained by the symbolic significance of including nuclear power in the taxonomy: “There is a desire on the part of France to make the Commission say that nuclear power is green, in order to legitimise its use of nuclear power in the eyes of the whole world and to impose this idea in the collective imagination for the future”.
What are the possible outcomes?
Many stakeholders are also critical of the process followed by the Commission.
Apart from the fact that the document was sent to Member States and the Platform on Sustainable Finance (a group of stakeholders advising the Commission) on New Year’s Eve, the BEUC criticised the lack of an open public consultation and the fact that the members of the platform only have ten days to submit their contributions (the consultation ends on 12 January).
After receiving its contributions and those of the Member States, the Commission will formally adopt the complementary delegated act before the end of the month (no precise date has been communicated so far).
This will then be forwarded to the Council of the EU and the European Parliament, which may oppose it.
In the Parliament, the Greens/EFA have already expressed their intention to vote against the delegated act as it stands.
The EPP group, on the other hand, stressed the necessary role of gas, “but for a transitional period and in certain situations”, as well as nuclear “as a low-carbon technology in the national energy mix, provided that sufficient provision is made for the highest safety standards as well as for decommissioning”, in a statement issued after the draft delegated act was made public.
In the EU Council, “it is unlikely that the text will be rejected, as it requires a strong and coordinated opposition to be able to veto it” (at least 20 Member States representing at least 65% of the EU population), Tsvetelina Kuzmanova, political advisor for E3G, told EUROPE.
While Austria, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal and Denmark may oppose the text, Finland and Sweden - two countries generally opposed to fossil gas but in favour of including nuclear power - “will most likely support it”, added her colleague Johannes Schroeten.
According to Ms Kuzmanova, Germany could play a “unifying role” but “the divisions within the German government on the role of gas make it unlikely for them to champion this position”. (Original version in French by Damien Genicot)