Environmental groups sue EU for labelling fossil gas as ‘green’
Environment groups lodged a lawsuit against the European Commission on 18 April to challenge its definition of fossil gas as a “green” energy source. In addition, Greenpeace sued the EU executive separately for deciding that nuclear power was worthy of its sustainable investment label.
‘As absurd as it is illegal’
The legal actions at the European Court of Justice come a year after the EU established its so-called “taxonomy” of energy sources. This is a classification list of sources it deems sustainable, as the bloc seeks to shift to a carbon-neutral future.
The EU included nuclear power and fossil gas (so-called “natural gas”) in its list, which it considers as “transitional” sources worthy of benefiting from breaks for green financing.
WWF, ClientEarth, Transport&Environment, and the German NGO BUND, have launched the lawsuit over gas’s inclusion.
They said in a joint statement that burning fossil gas releases high levels of carbon. Moreover, they pointed out that its extraction and transport contribute to methane emissions. Methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas, much more powerful than CO2 at warming the atmosphere in the short term.
The groups called fossil gas’ inclusion in the EU taxonomy “as absurd as it is illegal”. The groups further argued that it goes against the Paris climate accord and the policies of public financial institutions such as the European Investment Bank:
Read on...
Support us and go ad-freeBREAKING: Labelling fossil gas as ‘green’ is as absurd as it is unlawful. Today, we and @WWFEU, @bund_net and @transenv are taking the EU to court to stop the greenwashing. https://t.co/3LiX30XRwt pic.twitter.com/uQoVf9oTp0
— ClientEarth (@ClientEarth) April 18, 2023
‘False label’ for nuclear
Greenpeace argued in its lawsuit that the EU was applying a “false label” to nuclear power that could drain green financing from other sources.
Although nuclear power emits no carbon, Greenpeace holds that it represents a danger to the environment.
Concerns – and lawsuits – also abound in the UK over the threat its nuclear power plans pose to the environment. For instance, the campaign group Together Against Sizewell C is aiming to challenge the government’s development consent for the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk. This was the subject of a High Court hearing in March.
As the Canary has previously reported, Nature-focused groups have consistently raised concerns over the potential impact of the nuclear project on protected sites and species along the Suffolk coast.
Greenpeace’s view on nuclear is shared by some EU countries, notably Germany, Austria and Luxembourg, which have also gone to the Court of Justice of the European Union to challenge nuclear’s inclusion.
Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse
Featured image via Tim Evanson / Flickr, cropped to 700×403, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
Support us and go ad-freeWe know everyone is suffering under the Tories - but the Canary is a vital weapon in our fight back, and we need your support
The Canary Workers’ Co-op knows life is hard. The Tories are waging a class war against us we’re all having to fight. But like trade unions and community organising, truly independent working-class media is a vital weapon in our armoury.
The Canary doesn’t have the budget of the corporate media. In fact, our income is over 1,000 times less than the Guardian’s. What we do have is a radical agenda that disrupts power and amplifies marginalised communities. But we can only do this with our readers’ support.
So please, help us continue to spread messages of resistance and hope. Even the smallest donation would mean the world to us.
-
Show Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to leave a comment.Join the conversationPlease read our comment moderation policy here.
Natural gas emits CO2. Nuclear creates environmental problems. Electric car batteries require dirty mining and labour exploitation. The manufacture of both wind turbines and solar panels is expensive; the energy they produce is neither reliable, nor portable, nor storable and, without subsidies, nor is it cheap. The disposal of end-of-life wind turbines and solar panels is problematic and far from environmentally friendly.
Using horses or cattle to plough fields, draw carts or provide other energy is abhorrent. We have to accept that we must transition to manpower only: if you can’t lift it, shift it or roll it along; if you can’t warm yourself with the sweat of your own brow; if you can’t eat what you sow yourself then, comrade, you belong in the dustbin of history.
Greta Thunberg has said that if the only currently viable choices are coal and nuclear for energy generation, she would rather use nuclear. She’s right.