This is how the right in the EU managed to deceive climate activists

How did M, SD, KD, and L manage to get away with it?

Aftonbladet opening page Independently a social democrat.

Full Screen

The European Parliament may not always be known for its comprehensible decisions.

Many of us remember the European Union’s straight and curved debate in the 1990s. Not to mention the unreasonably large support of the angry French peasants. Or the fact that Parliament has to move back and forth between Brussels and Strasbourg every month.

There is plenty to shake your head.

But when it comes to climate issues, the European Union in recent years has pushed member states to move forward with their climate action. Climatology was taken to Europe, if you will.

Given European green, the European Union raised its green ambitions. By 2050, all EU member states should be climate neutral, according to European climate law.

But now something happened.

Reversal of the European Union’s decision

A very strange decision has been taken in the European Parliament. This applies to the EU classification. You know, this rating system tells investors and banks what’s climate smart, and what to avoid if you want a reasonably green profile.

Imagine a type of weight watcher with different points, but for those who want to lose their unnecessarily large climate footprint.

The whole point of such a system is that it actually reflects what is good and bad, what is good and what is really to be avoided.

By a thin majority, the European Parliament has now voted to classify nuclear and natural gas as sustainable energy sources.

Much like any wind turbine or solar panel.

It is not, let’s say it.

Nuclear energy is not solar energy

Among the Swedish MEPs, the Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Green Party and the Center Party voted no to allow nuclear power and natural gas to be classified as sustainable energy sources.

SPD MEP Jett Gotland discussed the issue in Parliament.

It is incomprehensible to add nuclear energy to the same level as solar and wind energy and to have more stringent standards for biogas compared to fossil gas. With a broader and weaker rating, she said, there would be less investment in solar and wind energy.

Might run away from Jill Greta

The moderates, the Swedish Democrats, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals voted in favor of this resolution.

Perhaps they thought it would be smoother if as many energy sources as possible could be classified as sustainable. Then you don’t need to change anything at all.

In addition to putting your legs on your back and running from Jill Greta down the street then.

What do you think of the European Union’s decision to equate nuclear energy with solar and wind energy? Can the EU still be called the standard bearer of a green and sustainable Europe after the decision on the new classification?

Speak with lead author Lovisa Arvidson. Live chat opens at 9.00 but you can ask questions now.