By Omar Fassal
First, you have to understand what European taxonomy is. In 2020, Europe has finished implementing its Green Deal, also known as the “Green Deal”. Its objective is simple and ambitious: to make Europe the first continent in the world to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Clearly, to ensure that the carbon emitted in 2050 is captured by several mechanisms (natural and artificial), so that net emissions are zero. To achieve this, Europe plans to invest more than 1,000 billion euros, and to deploy several sustainable sector strategies. The question that therefore arises is how to direct these investment flows towards activities deemed to be sustainable? This is where taxonomy comes in.
This is a list of around 100 activities that are deemed sustainable by the Union. Therefore, these activities can receive these green investment envelopes. A fundamental debate has taken place, concerning gas and nuclear power. For some – such as Green Peace, the party of European ecologists – this is a serious error, which will promote the development of gas and nuclear power, while investments in these energies must be reduced. For others, this is excellent news because we cannot achieve the energy transition without the support of these two energies. For two main reasons: first, the amount of energy needed for advanced economies is very large and cannot be achieved with a purely renewable mix. Then, renewable energies are always subject to intermittent production, an intermittency that our modern societies cannot afford.
Apprehensions about the gas relate to its actual carbon emissions. Gas is not a renewable energy that regenerates naturally; it is indeed a fossil fuel. Unlike other fossil fuels, it is the one that emits the least carbon: according to the American Institute of Geosciences, the combustion of natural gas emits 50% less CO2 than coal, and 30% less than oil. But critics of the gas dismiss this feat by explaining that the emissions of the entire process must be taken into account: the emissions necessary for its extraction from the ground, and for its liquefaction in order to transport it to countries not connected by a pipeline (this last operation being very energy intensive).
On the nuclear side, it is the form of energy that emits the least carbon. Hold on tight: according to the French Agency for the Environment and Energy Management, to produce 1 kilowatt hour of energy with a coal-fired power plant, you must emit 1058 grams of CO2, with a gas-fired power plant it is you have to emit 418 grams, with photovoltaics you need 30 grams, with wind power you need 10 grams, and with a nuclear power plant… you only need 6 grams! Nuclear power is by far the least carbon-emitting energy. It also makes it possible to produce gigantic quantities of energy, in line with the massive needs of advanced economies, without any problem of intermittency. But its detractors highlight two black points: the risk of nuclear disaster – that of Fukushima in particular having marked the spirits forever -, and the risk on the treatment of radioactive waste which must be confined underground to secure them over long periods of time. periods, for lack of being able to deal with them effectively at the moment. But technological advances are progressing, and now several emerging countries are interested in nuclear power: South Africa has 2 reactors which produce 5% of its electricity, Saudi Arabia aims to put 16 reactors into operation by 2040…
The current geopolitical context was also invited into the discussion. Some opponents of Russia have argued against including gas in the taxonomy. Why ? Because it will strengthen the demand for gas, which could create new markets for Russian exports. But some Ukrainians analyzed the situation differently: they explained that even Ukraine had significant gas resources – as well as nuclear installations – and that in the end it would benefit from these two energies being retained. As we can see, the debate even divides the members of the same Ukrainian camp.
The supply of gas to Europe after the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine has become a real headache for the Union. After signing an agreement for gas deliveries with the United States, then with Qatar, the European Union signed a new agreement this week with Egypt and Israel. Indeed, discoveries of major deposits in the Mediterranean will enable Israel to double its production. This will not solve the European problem in the short term, but it will allow it to gradually reduce its dependence on Russian gas. In the short term, rationing in Europe is inevitable. Germany, for example, began rationing hot water, public lighting, and closed municipal swimming pools. It encourages all its inhabitants to demonstrate a strong sense of responsibility. Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck led by example, explaining he was taking “shorter showers” to save energy. Surprising announcement that has gone around the planet like wildfire: Germany has decided to reopen its coal-fired power stations, to compensate for the energy shortage created by the drop in gas supply. Next winter is already shaping up to be critical. Russia will soon completely shut down its main pipeline to Germany (the Nord Stream 1) for a 10-day maintenance, leaving doubts whether or not it will reopen after the maintenance work!
Austria, Luxembourg and Green Peace have already announced that they will use all available legal mechanisms to stop Parliament’s decision to include gas and nuclear in the European taxonomy. But in the end, whether we include gas and nuclear or not, the taxonomy will remain a real global advance that should be welcomed. Why ? It will create a global benchmark that will inspire all countries on the planet – especially developing countries – to build and deploy their own legal arsenals. The United States and China are far behind on the subject, leaving the front of the pack to Europe, which has become the true global locomotive.