Thanks EU for making everything worse for no reason. Can't they just invent their own label.
Gas likely is better than Germany still burning tons of coal every day for energy but it's not green.
That's just sad really
Gas likely is better than Germany still burning tons of coal every day for energy but it's not green.
That's just sad really
The point is to direct and strongly favor investments in less worse energy production sources.
We're only sadly at a point where even some gas energy usage is a less worse option than no gas at all (because then, coal would be used instead).
good point, but still tragic.
Unless you can favor fast nuclear reinstallment.
The energy crisis we're facing for the coming century is ... not good.
So, again, this is all on Germany. They should clean up their own mess themselves and drop ideological dogmas.
Can you tell us what those ideological reasons why be?
Or are you straight up trying to dismiss their approach as irrational and dogmatic in the eyes of reader by suggesting it is ideological only?
1. you're german
2. you hate nuclear for ideological reasons
1. I'm not german
2. I don't hate nuclear
3. I disapprove of nuclear, because its proponents never budget for decommissioning; not for "ideological" reasons.
What are "ideological" reasons anyway, in this context? What ideology are you on about? You could say there's a "green ideology", I suppose, which amounts to preferring policies that don't wreck the environment. But how's that an "ideology"? Is it "ideological" to favour policies that don't result in widespread famine, or global thermonuclear war?
I'd be pro-nuclear, very much so, if plans for new plants included detailed, budgeted explanations of how and when the plant would be fully decommissioned. They never do though.
I wouldn't care about the label wouldn't it destroy years of work for a better environment.
"The technical screening criteria ensure that any new gas-based power/heat plant (or refurbished combined heat and power plant or heat/cool plant) is either below the technology-neutral 100g CO2/kWh life-cycle emission threshold (i.e. using Carbon Capture and Storage technologies) or meets a number of stringent conditions and obtains a construction permit by 2030." -- Questions and Answers on the EU Taxonomy Complementary Climate Delegated Act covering certain nuclear and gas activities
I think it's likely a good thing if Germany and some others invest money in Gas instead of coal. Especially now.
But in no world or metric is this green energy and should be built with green energy money.
It is green energy as long as the criteria are met. Even solar could be not considered green, depending on where you set the emission bar. There is no black and white. There is a long transition process, with timelines, budgets and targets. Rules on gas are very strict. The regulation is an improvement. Some countries prefer to rely on gas than on nuclear, and there isn't much that the commission can do.
That's what the EU Parliament are saying; but the truth is that the criteria are met if the criteria are met. Energy doesn't become "green" just because some bunch of lobbied and whipped politicians say it's green.
I am going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't live in Europe.
> "Gas likely is better than ..."
Everything got worse, but likely better? You seem to be contradicting yourself.