The classification of nuclear power and gas as a sustainable form of energy by the EU does hurt a bit. How on earth can nuclear power be classified as sustainable in the taxonomy given the existing storage problems (let’s not even talk about accidents)? And where does one get the idea of classifying the burning of gas as sustainable just because it produces fewer emissions per unit of energy than coal? The additional emissions that now occur during the extraction of fracked gas and its conversion to LNG ultimately make this energy source almost as damaging to the climate as coal.

The classification of gas as a sustainable energy source came as a result of pressure from Germany, while France enforced the sustainability of nuclear energy. This is understandable in terms of economic policy – but only in terms of economic policy. It should be noted that this classification is about much more than semantic problems of EU bureaucrats. On the capital markets, for example, it makes financial investments in fracking gas just as attractive as investments in wind power. And the conditions at which companies can refinance nuclear power and green power providers will be aligned (keyword: green bonds). In the future, gas and nuclear energy will probably also have to be treated in the same way as climate-neutral energy sources when it comes to tax incentives. Wouldn’t it have been better if the politicians in Germany and France had been honest and admitted to the use of gas and nuclear energy during a transition phase without getting caught up in the fairy tale of sustainability?