The EU declares gas and nuclear energy "green"

[Jacob]

The European Commission has labeled nuclear and gas as sustainable. Critics are calling the step "greenwashing" and say it could threaten the bloc's bid to become climate-neutral by 2050.

https://www.dw.com/en/european-commission-declares-nuclear-and-gas-to-be-green/a-60614990

From my perspective, calling natural gas green when facing the impending crisis of global warming is a bit... delusional? I mean, it's greener than coal, so I guess that's the motive? To help phase out coal?

I'm fine with nuclear energy being labelled green. Yes, nuclear waste is an issue and not green, but in the context of slowing down the climate crisis it's great, and I think that's the crux of the matter right now.

[Habbaku]

Yes, nuclear waste is an issue and not green, but in the context of slowing down the climate crisis it's great, and I think that's the crux of the matter right now.

I don't understand what calling nuclear waste "not green" in this context means. It's less carbon-intensive than wind and solar. How is that "not green"?

[Threviel]

Braine can expand on this, but nuclear waste is not necessarily a problem. Swedish waste can be fed into a new generation reactor and there's enough energy in them for a few hundred years and then there's a lot of less dangerous waste.

[Jacob]

Yes, nuclear waste is an issue and not green, but in the context of slowing down the climate crisis it's great, and I think that's the crux of the matter right now.

I don't understand what calling nuclear waste "not green" in this context means. It's less carbon-intensive than wind and solar. How is that "not green"?

We agree, I think.

Nuclear waste is potentially an environmental disaster if it contaminates the environment - and in that context it is not green, because environmental disasters are not green. The Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal in 1984 was, as I understand it, carbon neutral. But hundreds of thousands of people were exposed to toxins, thousands died, and the local environment was devastated. Thus it was not green, in spite of not having much impact on global warming.

But - as I believe I said - in the context of reducing our carbon footprint, nuclear energy is absolutely green and the EU label is -IMO justified (moreso than natural gas).

[Sheilbh]

My understanding is this is relevant for what private sector investors can class as green for what qualifies as "ESG" so it will have a big impact on what the fund and asset managers sitting on trillions of dollars of wealth (like all the big pension funds) invest in. My view is there is a far stronger case for allowing investment in nuclear than new fossil fuels production or use.

[Tamas]

I am happy about nuclear but it does feel like labelling gas as green is a cop-out. Will be pretty easy to make nice "look how green we are already, problem solved!" graphs thanks to it.

[Habbaku]

 

[Jacob]

Braine can expand on this, but nuclear waste is not necessarily a problem. Swedish waste can be fed into a new generation reactor and there's enough energy in them for a few hundred years and then there's a lot of less dangerous waste.

That's excellent - and I didn't realize. That makes the pro-nuclear power proposition even stronger, IMO.

[The Larch]

My understanding is this is relevant for what private sector investors can class as green for what qualifies as "ESG" so it will have a big impact on what the fund and asset managers sitting on trillions of dollars of wealth (like all the big pension funds) invest in. My view is there is a far stronger case for allowing investment in nuclear than new fossil fuels production or use.

Yup, it's just for the purposes of investment eligibility. There are still some caveats and strings attached, though, and legal challenges from some members are expected, so it's not as if it is a clear cut issue now.

[Tamas]

The way I see it if a politician is not trying to force nuclear power down the throats of the ignorant masses, they are not serious about fighting climate change. I don't think we have any other possible short term (in civilisational terms) solution that doesn't involve killing 6 billion people and going back to pre-industrial times. Which I know are the dreams of many European greens, but they should be ignored.

[The Larch]

The way I see it if a politician is not trying to force nuclear power down the throats of the ignorant masses, they are not serious about fighting climate change. I don't think we have any other possible short term (in civilisational terms) solution that doesn't involve killing 6 billion people and going back to pre-industrial times. Which I know are the dreams of many European greens, but they should be ignored.

[Sheilbh]

Some European Greens are great (although sllightly alarmed by, I think, the Slovenian Greens who were taken over by a green energy billionaire and renamed the Freedom Party and turned into a bit of a personal vehicle ). But I think Tamas is being fair to British Greens at least

[Habbaku]

German Greens are scum. 

[Sheilbh]

German Greens are scum. 

No! I love the German Greens (except on energy)

[Jacob]

The way I see it if a politician is not trying to force nuclear power down the throats of the ignorant masses, they are not serious about fighting climate change. I don't think we have any other possible short term (in civilisational terms) solution that doesn't involve killing 6 billion people and going back to pre-industrial times. Which I know are the dreams of many European greens, but they should be ignored.

As per my other thread, depopulation looks like it's coming anyhow.