Austria’s former environment minister Leonore Gewessler has blasted the EU’s top court for upholding rules that label gas and nuclear power as “sustainable” investments, calling the verdict “a eulogy for the fossil fuel era.”
Under pressure from Paris and Berlin, the European Commission proposed in 2021 that nuclear and gas be included in the bloc’s green finance taxonomy – a move that sparked outrage and a string of court cases, none of which have succeeded.
Gewessler, who pushed through the EU’s nature restoration law before leaving office and now leads Austria’s Green Party, also co-founded the bloc’s pro-renewables alliance. She voiced strong concerns over the court’s ruling in an interview with Euractiv.
What follows is an edited transcript.
Ms Gewessler, as minister in 2022, you took legal action against the EU’s green taxonomy for investments because it also included natural gas and nuclear power. How did that come about?
It was New Year’s Eve 2021 when, in a cloak-and-dagger move just before midnight, the European Commission sent member states the draft declaring natural gas and nuclear power “green”. One had the feeling they were ashamed of themselves.
Austria’s position was crystal clear: the taxonomy must make clear what harms the climate and what does not. Because if it says green on the label, it must also be green inside.
And the taxonomy did not deliver that?
It does not fully live up to that. Fossil gas is not green energy. And nuclear energy does not solve crises – it simply creates new ones.
So you sued. But the European Court did not agree with you.
In its current state, this ruling is a fatal signal because it destroys trust. I expect my successor, Norbert Totschnig, to take the case to the next level.
Why?
This ruling really opens the floodgates for the nuclear lobby. We know the history of nuclear power in Europe over the last decades, and I consider the court’s reasoning in this context to be flawed and incorrect.
One of the reasons cited by the judges in Luxembourg was that clean, climate-friendly energy sources are not yet available in sufficient quantities.
That argument makes no sense, economically or factually. Every euro we invest in reactors today is money that is not available for expanding the solutions we already have and that could be available tomorrow, namely solar, wind, hydro and geothermal.
I find the court’s ruling and reasoning surprising. Courts internationally recognise the climate crisis, and our judges are essentially passing judgement in the form of a eulogy for the fossil fuel age. But of course, the judiciary and politics must remain separate.
As minister, you also backed the law on nature restoration at the last minute. However, environmental laws are currently being rolled back in the EU, aren’t they?
This is the defensive battle of the fossil fuel lobby – and it’s not surprising. We are at a point in Europe where we are setting a course that will simply and irreversibly move us towards renewables and climate protection.
That everyone is rebelling against this in the political debate is something we’ve seen with every major social change.
Is the Green Deal under threat after all?
Of course, we can see that the attacks on the Green Deal are becoming more intense. That is why we need countries like Austria, which are not giving up the fight against nuclear power, and countries like Denmark, which are fighting for the 2040 climate target.
If Austria cannot prevail, will Europe face a nuclear age?
No. The nuclear lobby has promised us this a hundred times and never delivered, simply because all the rational facts speak against it.
It’s too expensive, it’s too slow. That’s precisely why the battle over financing nuclear energy at European level is so fierce: it simply doesn’t pay off.
Nuclear energy simply cannot compete with renewables.
(rh, de)
