Arizona Tribune - Brussels labels gas and nuclear as sustainable investments

Austria immediately responded by warning that it would go to court to try to halt the measure, underlining the passions roused by the issue.

Opponents of gas want to discourage investment in a fossil fuel technology they say only fuels the climate change crisis, while critics of nuclear energy point to the threat posed by accidents and nuclear waste.

Austrian Environment Minister Leonore Gewessler said: "The decision is wrong because it endangers the future... We are giving our children a backpack full of problems... It's irresponsible."

But the EU executive, under pressure from nuclear-powered France and gas-reliant Germany, argues that both have a role to play as cleaner power sources during the transition to a net-zero carbon future.

"The end is a low-carbon future powered by renewable energy. We do not have the capacity for that yet, but we still need to act urgently with all the means at our disposal," EU commissioner Mairead McGuinness said.

"We need to move as fast as we can from the highest carbon energy sources like coal during this transition. That may mean accepting imperfect solutions. Today's delegated act may be imperfect, but it is a real solution."

Green activists expressed outrage. Greenpeace sustainable finance campaigner Ariadna Rodrigo said: "I'd like to report an attempted robbery, please.

"Someone is trying to take billions of euro away from renewables and sink them into technologies that either do nothing to fight the climate crisis, like nuclear, or which actively make the problem worse, like fossil gas."

The debate over the bloc's so-called "taxonomy" -- its classification of "green" energy sources -- had raised opposition in the European Parliament where there is an outcry over including gas and nuclear.

Even within EU chief Ursula von der Leyen's commission, backing was not unanimous for the decision -- the 27 members had to hold a vote before making the announcement.

- Carbon emissions -

But McGuinness defended the decision, arguing that the plan imposes safeguards on how nuclear and gas projects are conducted under sustainable finance rules.

The fight over the European Union's classification of power sources is the latest dust-up in discussions between the member states on how to achieve a net zero-carbon economy by 2050.

Brussels had high hopes that the EU would help set a global standard on determining sustainable projects and direct big flows of Wall Street money towards saving the planet.

But EU member states often have widely differing energy mixes, with France, for example, proudly reliant on nuclear power -- which has negligible carbon emissions once built -- for its electricity needs.

France lobbied hard for nuclear energy to be included in the sustainable finance bracket. Its government declined to provide any immediate reaction to the decision in Brussels.

Germany, meanwhile, is highly dependent on natural gas piped in from Russia. It is also in a small group of nations that believe nuclear energy is unsafe, while gas could help coal-hungry economies like Poland's to turn the page.

Berlin and Paris were adamant that their chosen energy industries are fit to receive the Green label and the commission -- the EU executive -- was handed the politically poisonous task of reconciling the positions.

To win the label, gas and nuclear projects are subject to constraints: projects must be approved by 2030 and 2045 respectively, as well as meet a long list of sector-specific criteria.

- 'Gold standard' -

Four EU member states on Tuesday came out firmly against the inclusion of gas projects, arguing that the bloc's promise to set a "gold standard" for investors on how to classify energy sources was compromised.

Even with conditions, calling gas sustainable "is largely incompatible" with the goals of the Paris climate agreement, said a letter to the commission from Denmark, Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands.

That proposal will now be subject to a possible veto by a super majority of member states or by the European Parliament, though insiders believe this is unlikely.

O.Brown--AT