5 ms·

Thanks EU for making everything worse for no reason. Can't they just invent their own label. Gas likely is better than Germany still burning tons of coal every

by herbst 4y ago

Thanks EU for making everything worse for no reason. Can't they just invent their own label. Gas likely is better than Germany still burning tons of coal every day for energy but it's not green. That's just sad really

Juliate 4y ago
The point of the label is not that it's green or blue or whatever nature-friendly color. The point is to direct and strongly favor investments in less worse energy production sources. We're only sadly at a point where even some gas energy usage is a less worse option than no gas at all (because then, coal would be used instead).
- kmlx 4y ago
  > We're only sadly at a point where even some gas energy usage is a less worse option than no gas at all (because then, coal would be used instead). good point, but still tragic.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  There is no reason to favour investments in gas. This is a political compromise to placate Germany that drove itself into a corner by not wanting to hear about nuclear for ideological reasons.
  - Juliate 4y ago
    Cut completely gas out of the equation, you'll get coal instead and/or social uprising at the continent level. Unless you can favor fast nuclear reinstallment. The energy crisis we're facing for the coming century is ... not good.
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      That's besides the point. To get to net zero we can't favour new investments in gas. Maybe such investments are unavoidable in some cases but that's quite different. So, again, this is all on Germany. They should clean up their own mess themselves and drop ideological dogmas.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - osuairt 4y ago
    "ideological reasons" Can you tell us what those ideological reasons why be? Or are you straight up trying to dismiss their approach as irrational and dogmatic in the eyes of reader by suggesting it is ideological only?
    - LtWorf 4y ago
      By your answer we can learn that: 1. you're german 2. you hate nuclear for ideological reasons
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        Go for the man, not the ball. 1. I'm not german 2. I don't hate nuclear 3. I disapprove of nuclear, because its proponents never budget for decommissioning; not for "ideological" reasons. What are "ideological" reasons anyway, in this context? What ideology are you on about? You could say there's a "green ideology", I suppose, which amounts to preferring policies that don't wreck the environment. But how's that an "ideology"? Is it "ideological" to favour policies that don't result in widespread famine, or global thermonuclear war? I'd be pro-nuclear, very much so, if plans for new plants included detailed, budgeted explanations of how and when the plant would be fully decommissioned. They never do though.
- herbst 4y ago
  This also means that all the money people fought for in the last years to get countries to invest in green energy is now funelled back into non green energy. People who invest in green energy Fonds suddenly invest in gas. I wouldn't care about the label wouldn't it destroy years of work for a better environment.
  - frafra 4y ago
    From the article: "gas-fired plants built through 2030 will be recognised as a transitional energy source as long as they are used to replace dirtier fossil fuels such as oil and coal." "The technical screening criteria ensure that any new gas-based power/heat plant (or refurbished combined heat and power plant or heat/cool plant) is either below the technology-neutral 100g CO2/kWh life-cycle emission threshold (i.e. using Carbon Capture and Storage technologies) or meets a number of stringent conditions and obtains a construction permit by 2030." -- Questions and Answers on the EU Taxonomy Complementary Climate Delegated Act covering certain nuclear and gas activities
    - herbst 4y ago
      I've read that. A lot of the money was still ment for other projects. Essentially pausing the whole green energy effort for the next 8 years (at least) I think it's likely a good thing if Germany and some others invest money in Gas instead of coal. Especially now. But in no world or metric is this green energy and should be built with green energy money.
      - frafra 4y ago
        "Essentially pausing the whole green energy effort for the next 8 years (at least)" [citation needed] It is green energy as long as the criteria are met. Even solar could be not considered green, depending on where you set the emission bar. There is no black and white. There is a long transition process, with timelines, budgets and targets. Rules on gas are very strict. The regulation is an improvement. Some countries prefer to rely on gas than on nuclear, and there isn't much that the commission can do.
osuairt 4y ago
"Thanks EU for making everything worse for no reason. Can't they just invent their own label." I am going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't live in Europe.
- herbst 4y ago
  I do live in the heart of Europe but not in the EU. Best of both worlds I guess.
  - LtWorf 4y ago
    Unless you're poor…
    - herbst 4y ago
      Not sure what you are referring too to be honest.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    Europe but not EU can mean anything from Switzerland to Bosnia and Herzegovina to Moldova to Belarus, so it could be good or pretty bad.
    - isbvhodnvemrwvn 4y ago
      My guess would be Serbia, that's the typical attitude towards the EU there (not to mention not-so-subtle pro-Russian stance). The only place which sees the EU in worse light would probably be Belarus or Russia.
      - chicob 4y ago
        Why not the UK?
        sofixa 4y ago
        Generally British people wouldn't say "heart of Europe". If anything when talking about Europe they mean continental Europe and don't include the British Isles in that.
rdsubhas 4y ago
> "Thanks EU for making everything worse ..." > "Gas likely is better than ..." Everything got worse, but likely better? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

by herbst 4y ago

Juliate 4y ago

The point of the label is not that it's green or blue or whatever nature-friendly color. The point is to direct and strongly favor investments in less worse energy production sources. We're only sadly at a point where even some gas energy usage is a less worse option than no gas at all (because then, coal would be used instead).

kmlx 4y ago
> We're only sadly at a point where even some gas energy usage is a less worse option than no gas at all (because then, coal would be used instead). good point, but still tragic.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
There is no reason to favour investments in gas. This is a political compromise to placate Germany that drove itself into a corner by not wanting to hear about nuclear for ideological reasons.
- Juliate 4y ago
  Cut completely gas out of the equation, you'll get coal instead and/or social uprising at the continent level. Unless you can favor fast nuclear reinstallment. The energy crisis we're facing for the coming century is ... not good.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    That's besides the point. To get to net zero we can't favour new investments in gas. Maybe such investments are unavoidable in some cases but that's quite different. So, again, this is all on Germany. They should clean up their own mess themselves and drop ideological dogmas.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- osuairt 4y ago
  "ideological reasons" Can you tell us what those ideological reasons why be? Or are you straight up trying to dismiss their approach as irrational and dogmatic in the eyes of reader by suggesting it is ideological only?
  - LtWorf 4y ago
    By your answer we can learn that: 1. you're german 2. you hate nuclear for ideological reasons
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      Go for the man, not the ball. 1. I'm not german 2. I don't hate nuclear 3. I disapprove of nuclear, because its proponents never budget for decommissioning; not for "ideological" reasons. What are "ideological" reasons anyway, in this context? What ideology are you on about? You could say there's a "green ideology", I suppose, which amounts to preferring policies that don't wreck the environment. But how's that an "ideology"? Is it "ideological" to favour policies that don't result in widespread famine, or global thermonuclear war? I'd be pro-nuclear, very much so, if plans for new plants included detailed, budgeted explanations of how and when the plant would be fully decommissioned. They never do though.
herbst 4y ago
This also means that all the money people fought for in the last years to get countries to invest in green energy is now funelled back into non green energy. People who invest in green energy Fonds suddenly invest in gas. I wouldn't care about the label wouldn't it destroy years of work for a better environment.
- frafra 4y ago
  From the article: "gas-fired plants built through 2030 will be recognised as a transitional energy source as long as they are used to replace dirtier fossil fuels such as oil and coal." "The technical screening criteria ensure that any new gas-based power/heat plant (or refurbished combined heat and power plant or heat/cool plant) is either below the technology-neutral 100g CO2/kWh life-cycle emission threshold (i.e. using Carbon Capture and Storage technologies) or meets a number of stringent conditions and obtains a construction permit by 2030." -- Questions and Answers on the EU Taxonomy Complementary Climate Delegated Act covering certain nuclear and gas activities
  - herbst 4y ago
    I've read that. A lot of the money was still ment for other projects. Essentially pausing the whole green energy effort for the next 8 years (at least) I think it's likely a good thing if Germany and some others invest money in Gas instead of coal. Especially now. But in no world or metric is this green energy and should be built with green energy money.
    - frafra 4y ago
      "Essentially pausing the whole green energy effort for the next 8 years (at least)" [citation needed] It is green energy as long as the criteria are met. Even solar could be not considered green, depending on where you set the emission bar. There is no black and white. There is a long transition process, with timelines, budgets and targets. Rules on gas are very strict. The regulation is an improvement. Some countries prefer to rely on gas than on nuclear, and there isn't much that the commission can do.

osuairt 4y ago

"Thanks EU for making everything worse for no reason. Can't they just invent their own label." I am going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't live in Europe.

herbst 4y ago
I do live in the heart of Europe but not in the EU. Best of both worlds I guess.
- LtWorf 4y ago
  Unless you're poor…
  - herbst 4y ago
    Not sure what you are referring too to be honest.
- sofixa 4y ago
  Europe but not EU can mean anything from Switzerland to Bosnia and Herzegovina to Moldova to Belarus, so it could be good or pretty bad.
  - isbvhodnvemrwvn 4y ago
    My guess would be Serbia, that's the typical attitude towards the EU there (not to mention not-so-subtle pro-Russian stance). The only place which sees the EU in worse light would probably be Belarus or Russia.
    - chicob 4y ago
      Why not the UK?
      - sofixa 4y ago
        Generally British people wouldn't say "heart of Europe". If anything when talking about Europe they mean continental Europe and don't include the British Isles in that.

rdsubhas 4y ago

> "Thanks EU for making everything worse ..." > "Gas likely is better than ..." Everything got worse, but likely better? You seem to be contradicting yourself.