• MarkG_108@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The European Commission is being sued by environmental campaigners over a decision to include gas and nuclear in an EU guide to “green” investments.

    Eight national and regional Greenpeace organisations including France, Germany and EU office in Brussels are asking the court to rule the inclusion of gas and nuclear invalid.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/18/eu-faces-legal-action-gas-nuclear-green-investments-guide-european-commission

    I totally support Greenpeace in this. Neither nuclear nor gas should be considered a “green” investment. Ia Aanstoot, the “18 year old climate activist”, is wrong to support the European Commission’s stance on this.

    • twopi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with not including gas. But not including nuclear is counter to the notion of being green. Nuclear does NOT produce carbon pollution and it is important to decarbonizing

      • MarkG_108@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nuclear costs a huge amount. It does produce waste. There are still safety concerns regarding nuclear power, which only increase as our reliance upon it increases. Investing in renewable energy makes more sense.

        • twopi@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You need to have base power and either be nuclear or hydro and hydro is heavily dependant on the environment. So we should invest in both

          For example Ontario is 60% nuclear, 20% hydro, 9% renewables and 11% gas about. So we should invest in both to eliminate natural gas.