Showing posts with label Green Energy Plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Green Energy Plan. Show all posts

Thursday, February 3

EU's Green Investment Controversy


Defining nuclear and gas as sustainable has led to calls of greenwashing, threats of legal action from some EU countries and a lot of column inches dedicated to the obscurely titled 'taxonomy' system.

But what is all the fuss about?

On Wednesday, the European Commission is set to sign off on its latest plans for the EU’s taxonomy labelling system, which helps private investors identify which energy investments are sustainable.

The aim is to direct money into sustainable energy sources and help the bloc achieve its ambitious plan of being carbon neutral by 2050.

The current proposal has caused a stir by labelling nuclear and gas as sustainable sources of energy, something that has caused outrage from green activists and organisations.


When the Commission adopts the act, the Parliament and Council will have two months to raise any objections. Failing this, it will enter into force.

A majority of MEPs or 20 out of 27 member states could block the plans, but before that happens the arguments for and against marking the two energy sources as sustainable will have to be laid out.

Nuclear energy
For many, nuclear represents the perfect opportunity to maximise energy output, while minimising carbon emissions. For others, it symbolises just another environmental problem, with a solution to the disposal of radioactive waste yet to be found.

For French MEP Christophe Grudler, there is no other alternative but to include nuclear energy as a sustainable source.

“If we want to meet the Green Deal goals, we have no choice. We have to include nuclear in the taxonomy,” Grudler told Euronews.

“The question is, do we want to meet the Green Deal goals? If we want to do it, we need decarbonised energy, like nuclear. The Commission said we need around 15% of nuclear in the energy mix in 2050 to meet the goal.”

On nuclear waste, the European lawmaker – who is member of French President Emmanuel Macron’s ‘La République En Marche!’ party – says people are working hard to find an answer to the problem.  READ MORE...

Tuesday, February 1

The Eastern Mediterranean Changing

Image courtesy of Aris Messinis / AFP

Earlier this month, the United States surprised Greece and its two primary partners in the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum, Israel and Cyprus, by withdrawing its backing for a natural gas pipeline that would have connected them to Europe. 

The American change of heart was ostensibly justified by the need to focus on clean energy sources and that this project did not align with Europe’s green energy plan.

Instead, Washington urged the countries to consider two alternative electricity transmission projects; the EuroAfrica interconnector intended to deliver electricity from Egypt through Cyprus and then onwards to Greece and Europe via Crete, and its sister EuroAsia project that starts in Israel and connects to Europe through Cyprus. 

Both projects integrate these countries’ electricity grids with Europe’s.  The EastMed gas pipeline idea emerged after significant findings of gas deposits in the territorial waters of Cyprus, Egypt, and Israel. 

The pipeline, which would have cost an estimated $6-7 billion, was seen by many as an unrealistic project given the potential changes in the European energy consumption patterns, its sheer complexity and cost and the financing needs. Chances were that it would not get off the ground much less be completed by 2025 as projected.

The US State Department withdrew support for the project through the delivery of a non-paper – an informal manner of expressing a government’s preferences or requirement without direct attribution. Presumably the content could have been delivered orally except that Washington may have tried to avoid a situation where its message was diluted.

Even if the US may have thought it had a responsibility as part of the 3+1 mechanism of meetings with Cyprus, Greece and Israel designed to encourage regional cooperation, the fact remains that the decision to build a pipeline rests with those three countries and the Europeans and not Washington.  READ MORE...