

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Activists demonstrate in downtown Frankfurt against greenwashing of nuclear energy and fossil gas by the taxonomy of the European Union on January 11, 2022. (Photo: Arne Dedert/Picture Alliance via Getty Images)
Climate advocates responded with outrage to the European Parliament's vote Wednesday to classify fossil gas and nuclear projects as "green," an official designation that will allow them to access additional taxpayer subsidies and private capital despite their destructive environmental impacts.
Members of the European Parliament voted 328 to 278 to kill a motion that would have blocked the European Commission's so-called "taxonomy" plan, clearing the way for the proposal to become law as demonstrators inside the parliament building in Strasbourg, France voiced their objections.
"Betrayal!" protesters yelled as an official announced the outcome of the lawmakers' vote.
Politico explains that under the proposed rules, "new gas-fired plants built through 2030 will be recognized as a transitional energy source as long as they replace a coal- or fuel oil-fired plant, switch to a low-carbon gas like hydrogen by 2035, and stay under a maximum emissions cap over 20 years."
"Existing nuclear plants will receive a green label," the outlet added, "if they pledge to switch to so-called 'accident-tolerant fuels' beginning in 2025 and detail plans for final storage of radioactive waste in 2050."
Marie Toussaint, a member of parliament with the Greens, condemned the plan as "an odious greenwashing attempt" and a "failure for Europe and the climate."
In a series of tweets on Wednesday, Toussaint wrote that "with this taxonomy, billions of euros normally devoted to the energy transition will be captured by nuclear energy and gas, dirty, dangerous, and too-expensive energies."
"It's also a huge giveaway for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin," Toussaint argued. "According to Greenpeace E.U., 4 billion euros per year will go to Putin's Russia via new gas projects, for a total of 32 billion euros by 2030."
Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, a co-founder of Progressive International, offered a similar assessment in a video posted to social media Wednesday:
Almost immediately following Wednesday's vote, Greenpeace E.U. vowed to take legal action against the European Commission over the taxonomy, arguing that "it's dirty politics and it's an outrageous outcome to label gas and nuclear as green and keep more money flowing to Putin's war chest."
"The E.U. Commission's shameful backroom dealing on behalf of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries won't help," said Ariadna Rodrigo, Greenpeace E.U.'s sustainable finance campaigner. "We're inspired by the climate activists here in Strasbourg this week and are confident that the courts will strike down this politically motivated greenwashing as clearly in breach of E.U. law."
As the New York Times notes, a "green" label for gas and nuclear projects "provides financial incentives for European countries and companies to invest in those energy sources, and, critics say, would delay fully switching to renewable sources that are much better for the environment, such as wind and solar energy."
Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg was among those expressing that concern Wednesday, warning that the European Commission rules "will delay a desperately needed real sustainable transition and deepen our dependency on Russian fuels."
"The hypocrisy is striking," she added, "but unfortunately not surprising."
The Not My Taxonomy campaign, which mobilized against the European Commission proposal, said that Wednesday's vote "is not the end."
"This is a step backwards in the fight against greenwashing and a step away from the sustainable future the E.U. has promised, but we are not defeated," the campaigners said. "The movement will continue to fight for our collective future."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Climate advocates responded with outrage to the European Parliament's vote Wednesday to classify fossil gas and nuclear projects as "green," an official designation that will allow them to access additional taxpayer subsidies and private capital despite their destructive environmental impacts.
Members of the European Parliament voted 328 to 278 to kill a motion that would have blocked the European Commission's so-called "taxonomy" plan, clearing the way for the proposal to become law as demonstrators inside the parliament building in Strasbourg, France voiced their objections.
"Betrayal!" protesters yelled as an official announced the outcome of the lawmakers' vote.
Politico explains that under the proposed rules, "new gas-fired plants built through 2030 will be recognized as a transitional energy source as long as they replace a coal- or fuel oil-fired plant, switch to a low-carbon gas like hydrogen by 2035, and stay under a maximum emissions cap over 20 years."
"Existing nuclear plants will receive a green label," the outlet added, "if they pledge to switch to so-called 'accident-tolerant fuels' beginning in 2025 and detail plans for final storage of radioactive waste in 2050."
Marie Toussaint, a member of parliament with the Greens, condemned the plan as "an odious greenwashing attempt" and a "failure for Europe and the climate."
In a series of tweets on Wednesday, Toussaint wrote that "with this taxonomy, billions of euros normally devoted to the energy transition will be captured by nuclear energy and gas, dirty, dangerous, and too-expensive energies."
"It's also a huge giveaway for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin," Toussaint argued. "According to Greenpeace E.U., 4 billion euros per year will go to Putin's Russia via new gas projects, for a total of 32 billion euros by 2030."
Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, a co-founder of Progressive International, offered a similar assessment in a video posted to social media Wednesday:
Almost immediately following Wednesday's vote, Greenpeace E.U. vowed to take legal action against the European Commission over the taxonomy, arguing that "it's dirty politics and it's an outrageous outcome to label gas and nuclear as green and keep more money flowing to Putin's war chest."
"The E.U. Commission's shameful backroom dealing on behalf of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries won't help," said Ariadna Rodrigo, Greenpeace E.U.'s sustainable finance campaigner. "We're inspired by the climate activists here in Strasbourg this week and are confident that the courts will strike down this politically motivated greenwashing as clearly in breach of E.U. law."
As the New York Times notes, a "green" label for gas and nuclear projects "provides financial incentives for European countries and companies to invest in those energy sources, and, critics say, would delay fully switching to renewable sources that are much better for the environment, such as wind and solar energy."
Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg was among those expressing that concern Wednesday, warning that the European Commission rules "will delay a desperately needed real sustainable transition and deepen our dependency on Russian fuels."
"The hypocrisy is striking," she added, "but unfortunately not surprising."
The Not My Taxonomy campaign, which mobilized against the European Commission proposal, said that Wednesday's vote "is not the end."
"This is a step backwards in the fight against greenwashing and a step away from the sustainable future the E.U. has promised, but we are not defeated," the campaigners said. "The movement will continue to fight for our collective future."
Climate advocates responded with outrage to the European Parliament's vote Wednesday to classify fossil gas and nuclear projects as "green," an official designation that will allow them to access additional taxpayer subsidies and private capital despite their destructive environmental impacts.
Members of the European Parliament voted 328 to 278 to kill a motion that would have blocked the European Commission's so-called "taxonomy" plan, clearing the way for the proposal to become law as demonstrators inside the parliament building in Strasbourg, France voiced their objections.
"Betrayal!" protesters yelled as an official announced the outcome of the lawmakers' vote.
Politico explains that under the proposed rules, "new gas-fired plants built through 2030 will be recognized as a transitional energy source as long as they replace a coal- or fuel oil-fired plant, switch to a low-carbon gas like hydrogen by 2035, and stay under a maximum emissions cap over 20 years."
"Existing nuclear plants will receive a green label," the outlet added, "if they pledge to switch to so-called 'accident-tolerant fuels' beginning in 2025 and detail plans for final storage of radioactive waste in 2050."
Marie Toussaint, a member of parliament with the Greens, condemned the plan as "an odious greenwashing attempt" and a "failure for Europe and the climate."
In a series of tweets on Wednesday, Toussaint wrote that "with this taxonomy, billions of euros normally devoted to the energy transition will be captured by nuclear energy and gas, dirty, dangerous, and too-expensive energies."
"It's also a huge giveaway for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin," Toussaint argued. "According to Greenpeace E.U., 4 billion euros per year will go to Putin's Russia via new gas projects, for a total of 32 billion euros by 2030."
Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, a co-founder of Progressive International, offered a similar assessment in a video posted to social media Wednesday:
Almost immediately following Wednesday's vote, Greenpeace E.U. vowed to take legal action against the European Commission over the taxonomy, arguing that "it's dirty politics and it's an outrageous outcome to label gas and nuclear as green and keep more money flowing to Putin's war chest."
"The E.U. Commission's shameful backroom dealing on behalf of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries won't help," said Ariadna Rodrigo, Greenpeace E.U.'s sustainable finance campaigner. "We're inspired by the climate activists here in Strasbourg this week and are confident that the courts will strike down this politically motivated greenwashing as clearly in breach of E.U. law."
As the New York Times notes, a "green" label for gas and nuclear projects "provides financial incentives for European countries and companies to invest in those energy sources, and, critics say, would delay fully switching to renewable sources that are much better for the environment, such as wind and solar energy."
Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg was among those expressing that concern Wednesday, warning that the European Commission rules "will delay a desperately needed real sustainable transition and deepen our dependency on Russian fuels."
"The hypocrisy is striking," she added, "but unfortunately not surprising."
The Not My Taxonomy campaign, which mobilized against the European Commission proposal, said that Wednesday's vote "is not the end."
"This is a step backwards in the fight against greenwashing and a step away from the sustainable future the E.U. has promised, but we are not defeated," the campaigners said. "The movement will continue to fight for our collective future."