Vienna criticises EU for inclusion of natural gas and nuclear in sustainable finance taxonomy

Climate Councillor Jürgen Czernohorszky explained that 'greenwashing' dated technology was not the way towards sustainability

Today, local authorities in Vienna published a statement by Climate Councillor Jürgen Czernohorszky, criticising the upcoming amendment to the EU’s taxonomy regulations on nuclear energy. According to a statement from the beginning of the year, the European Commission plans to include natural gas and nuclear energy as ‘transitional’ energy sources.

The EU Taxonomy is supposed to be a robust, science-based tool, that can help guide Member States and investors towards making informed decisions when investing in green energy during the next 30 years.

The Viennese position

The main point of criticism levied by Councilor Czernohorszky centres around the fact that nuclear energy is not ‘sustainable’ and classifying it as such would water down the meaning of the word entirely. His position comes from the fact that there is no way to safely dispose of waste products from nuclear power plants.

According to the proposed amendment, the ‘transitional’ status of nuclear and gas is not limitless, considering the bloc’s aim at carbon neutrality by 2050. The proposition from 31 December would apply to nuclear plants that have a building permit dating before 2045.

For natural gas, conditions are even more stringent. Natural gas projects need to be low-emissions and substitute a closed fossil fuel energy production site.

Jürgen Czernohorszky, however, said that this move would only detract from much-needed renewable energy investments and 'greenwash' dated technologies.

Nuclear waste disposal

Currently, the only viable method of disposing of highly radioactive waste materials is to put them deep into the ground and wait for thousands of years. Strontium-90 and cesium-137 have half-lives of about 30 years (meaning half of their radioactivity will decay in 30 years). Plutonium-239, on the other hand, has a half-life of 24,000 years.

In fact, disposal seems to be the centre point of criticism to the taxonomy, as Councilor Czernohorszky later explained that every country that uses nuclear energy needs to develop its own safe methods of disposal or storage.

He also criticised the Onkalo fuel element repository in Finland, hailed by the nuclear industry as a solution to the problem.

That site offers a massive storage capacity, however, according to a study by the Vienna Climate Ombudsman (Wiener Umweltanwaltschaft) the copper containers used in the storage process degrade too quickly to offer meaningful protection against leaks.  

The study also outlines a myriad of past transactions committed by countries in terms of nuclear waste disposal. This includes sea dumping and selling waste to third countries, shifting responsibility around the globe.

The two camps in the EU

There are a total of twelve countries in the EU, including France and Finland who have championed the inclusion of nuclear power as a clean source. They argue that nuclear waste would not be a problem, as it has been in the past if proper regulations are put in place.

The anti-nuclear camp is smaller and includes Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Portugal and Denmark. In mid-January, the Austrian government expressed their readiness to go to court if the EU includes nuclear energy in their taxonomy for sustainable finance.