Greenpeace and other environmental organizations on Tuesday filed a complaint at the European Court of Justice opposing which energy sources the EU is prepared to support financially as part of its so-called Green New Deal. 

In what the European Commission calls its taxonomy for sustainable activities, renewable energies like wind, solar and hydroelectric are classified as "sustainable." That means they can qualify for subsidies and be labeled as green by private sector investors, but the same applies to atomic energy and natural gas. 

Why do Greenpeace and co. oppose? 

Greenpeace, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), German group BUND and other NGOs launched the appeal. They are following in the footsteps of Austria's government, which did the same last October. 

"Atomic energy and gas cannot be sustainable," Greenpeace Germany's head of economic and societal issues Nina Treu said. "Green money cannot be misused for industries that led us into the natural and climate crisis in the first place. It must flow into renewable energies and into modernizing conversions towards a social and ecological economy." 

BUND's chairman Olaf Bandt said the groups wanted to legally challenge "this brazen form of greenwashing." 

"Supposed climate change via false labeling is not acceptable," Bandt said. "With the decision to classify natural gas as climate-friendly, the European Commission has put itself on factually and legally shaky ground." 

What's the EU's rationale for the system? 

Several European countries led by France were keen to include nuclear power among the EU's sustainable mix, while a German-led bloc was equally enthusiastic about natural gas. 

Proponents of nuclear power say it reduces independence on imported energy, for instance Russian fossil fuels, and that its CO2 footprint is extremely low, admittedly discounting other associated environmental concerns. 

Natural gas advocates, meanwhile, argue that the technology can be the bridge between coal, which is much more CO2-intensive than gas, and renewable energies. 

The taxonomy is also supposed to serve as a guideline to banks and private investors about which projects can be dubbed sustainable. This is of increasing importance as investment portfolios claiming to be in environmentally friendly projects are becoming more popular.

Typically, cases at the ECJ, which sometimes has the power to deem European or national policies in violation of EU laws and demand changes, take more than a year if the court elects to hear them. 

msh/nm (AFP, Reuters)