Thing is, the plans and decisions have already been made, under a more stringent definition. By changing the definition, they have effectively undermined those earlier plans and decisions. That's dishonesty.
There were no plans and decisions on the taxonomy regarding gas or nuclear before, which is part of the Commission action plan on financing sustainable growth. The taxonomy still needs a final vote to pass, actually, and it does not replace any previous taxonomy or regulation. Check your sources before moving accusations.
The previous "taxonomy" was the default understanding, that "green" doesn't include burning methane.