The Greenwashing of Nuclear Power
In the realm of climate policy, the European Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen, has declared its unwavering commitment to combating climate change. Yet, as August draws to a close, the European General Court in Luxembourg witnesses the culmination of the initial phase of a trio of lawsuits against the European Commission. Surprisingly, these legal actions are not mounted by climate mitigation opponents but by environmental groups and countries such as Austria seeking to salvage what they perceive as a compromised piece of legislation within the European Green Deal.
At the center of these lawsuits is the Complementary Climate Delegated Act (CCDA), introduced in January, which supplements the Taxonomy Regulation. The latter regulation outlines sustainable economic activities eligible for green investments, including a surprising addition: natural gas and nuclear power.
The inclusion of nuclear power and gas within this taxonomy has raised questions about the integrity of the European Commission’s climate policies. Critics argue that this move contradicts the very purpose of the Taxonomy Regulation, and they attribute this controversial inclusion to a campaign of misinformation orchestrated by the nuclear lobby.
Seven nuclear-powered EU countries – France, Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia – penned a letter in March 2021 to the European Commission demanding the incorporation of nuclear energy into the taxonomy. However, a thorough investigation by independent journalists revealed that 20 out of the 25 claims made in the letter were either fictitious or misleading.
This manipulation of information to further a specific agenda isn’t a new tactic. It capitalizes on the media’s tendency to present both sides of an issue in a “fair and balanced” manner, even when one side is rooted in misinformation. The goal is not to convince but to confuse and demoralize, effectively stifling organized efforts for change.
Despite the dubious nature of the claims, the Nuclear Seven’s letter was followed by a draft report from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC). This report, tasked with determining whether nuclear power adheres to the Do No Significant Harm principle, was widely criticized for its lack of impartiality and the fact that the JRC itself conducts nuclear research funded by Euratom.
Critics, including European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Health, Environment and Emerging Risks, highlighted inconsistencies within the JRC’s report. Regardless of these criticisms, the report went unaltered, contributing to the ultimate decision to label nuclear power as sustainable.
The Nuclear Alliance, comprising 14 EU countries, has capitalized on this decision, advocating for equal treatment of nuclear energy alongside renewables in EU funding and joint projects. This alliance’s efforts have already resulted in the acceptance of nuclear-produced “green hydrogen” and concessions in the revision of the Renewable Energy Directive, enabling a larger role for nuclear power in achieving renewable energy targets.
The triumph of the nuclear lobby exemplifies the erosion of the term “sustainability.” As the nuclear industry secures a green facade, true sustainability is compromised. The narrative becomes distorted, allowing actions that run counter to genuine climate action. In this topsy-turvy landscape, the nuclear lobby thrives, obscuring the real strides needed for a sustainable future.
Sustainability, once a symbol of progress, risks becoming a pawn in the hands of influential interests. As the nuclear zombies revel in their greenwashing, true climate action is hampered, and the urgency of renewable energy solutions is overshadowed. The triumph of the nuclear lobby serves as a cautionary tale about the perils of allowing misinformation to dictate policy and the importance of upholding the true spirit of sustainability in the face of powerful adversaries.
Photo by Nicolas Hippert on Unsplash
Written by Carole Wilay ’25