Will the European Commission buy into the lie that nuclear power is clean and green?

Just who will be making this decision? The global nuclear lobby is desperate to get tax-payer funding , to keep its expensive, dirty, dangerous product going.

Pro nuclear stooges, like Ursula von der Leyen (at left) are keen to get Europe to decide that nuclear power is necessary for climate change.

They keep calling nuclear “zero’ or ”low carbon” – ignoring the full chain of carbon-emiitting processes involved in nuclear structures and in fuelling rectors.

Also ignored , the delays in gettting the industry going – too late to be of any use.

nuclear: Fate of EU green taxonomy ‘now in the hands of von der Leyen’.

The taxonomy text will need approval from a majority of EU member states and members of the European Parliament.

Brussels proposes green label for nuclear and natural gas
European Commission paves way for investments despite concerns over waste and CO2 emissions , Ft.com, Mehreen Khan in Brussels, 1 January 2022.

Brussels wants to recognise nuclear power and forms of natural gas as “green” activity as part of a landmark EU classification scheme to help financial markets decide what counts as sustainable investment. In long-awaited plans, the European Commission has paved the way for investment in new nuclear power plants for at least the next two decades and natural gas for at least a decade, under a green labelling system known as the “taxonomy for sustainable finance”. The labelling system, which will cover industries that generate about 80 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the EU, is the first attempt by a major global regulator to decide what counts as truly sustainable economic activity and help stamp out so-called greenwashing in the financial sector.

A draft legal text, seen by the Financial Times, says the EU’s green label should be awarded to controversial energy sources including nuclear power and natural gas under certain circumstances. The decision was taken after a vocal group of pro-nuclear countries, led by France, and pro-gas governments in southern and eastern Europe, demanded the taxonomy should not punish energy sources that provide a bulk of their power generation….

The draft taxonomy text says nuclear power should be considered a sustainable economic activity as long as EU countries that host power stations can safely dispose of toxic waste and meet a criteria to cause “no significant harm” to the environment. The construction of new nuclear plants will be recognised as green for permits granted until 2045, says the text. ……….

https://www.ft.com/content/7872a05f-9e38-4740-9b1b-4efc69ca316c

January 1, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Germany aiming for far-reaching methods to reduce carbon emissions across all sectors

Germany is likely to fail to hit its carbon emissions reduction targets in
the coming two years, Economy and Climate Protection Minister Robert Habeck
told Die Zeit newspaper. The previous government set more ambitious CO2
reduction targets, including being carbon neutral by 2040, after a top
court ruled in April that Germany must tighten its climate protection law.

The new coalition government presented plans to step up climate protection
efforts entailing far-reaching reforms for the utility sector and across
manufacturing industries, buildings, transport and agriculture.”We will
probably miss our targets for 2022. … Even for 2023 it will be difficult
enough. We are starting with a drastic backlog,” said Habeck, co-leader of
the Greens who are part of the new ruling coalition. Germany aims to cut
emissions in industry, the biggest carbon emitting sector, to 177 million
CO2 tonnes in 2022, down 38% compared with 1990.

Independent 30th Dec 2021

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/germany-carbon-targets-robert-habeck-b1984463.html

January 1, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, Germany | Leave a comment

Nuclear power in the EU taxonomy and Germany’s position

Q&A: Why is Germany phasing-out nuclear power and why now? 28 Dec 2021, Kerstine Appunn ”……………………………..Nuclear power in the EU taxonomy and Germany’s position

Observers have called France’s push to include nuclear power projects in the EU taxonomy as a sustainable investment a “political nightmare” for Germany. Backed by a group of other European countries such as Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Finland, Hungary, Poland and Romania, French President Emmanuel Macron tries to make nuclear power a pillar of the EU’s decarbonisation strategy, while Germany is betting heavily on wind and solar power. It is supported in its push for a nuclear-free taxonomy by Portugal, Austria, Luxembourg and Denmark. Germany’s new Chancellor Olaf Scholz, of the Social Democrats (SPD), has told Macron that he has always been opposed to nuclear power, much like his coalition partner, the Green Party.

If included in the taxonomy, nuclear power investments could be part of green funds, banks could declare loans to nuclear projects as sustainable investments – all in aid of getting more private investment to flow into climate friendly economic activities and businesses.

Agora Energiewende’s Müller says the German approach is still more future-proof. “The idea that nuclear power stations can be built at predictable costs and by a predictable schedule has not proven to be realistic. We also still have the unresolved problem of nuclear waste storage as well as the possibility of a major accident. Germany’s decision to focus on the expansion of renewables instead of nuclear is reflected also by the markets as renewables dominate electricity investments internationally.”

The European Commission is set to come out with a proposal for the taxonomy in January 2022, which EU member states will then decide on with a majority vote. Instead of an in-or-out decision on nuclear (and natural gas), the commission is likely to present a compromise that would classify nuclear as a temporary, transitional technology which has to be labelled and declared in funds so that consumers and investors have the choice between “entirely green” products, e.g. renewable energies, or second or third tier products that include nuclear or gas technology.

Whatever the decision, Müller says Germany and France should focus more on the common ground concerning the energy transition. “Recent French studies show – independently of the future of nuclear energy – that a massive expansion of renewables is needed to reach the climate targets. And there are also opportunities for cooperation between Germany and France on green hydrogen.”

Shouldn’t Germany – like other countries – embrace and support the use of new small modular reactors?

Using a large fleet of small modular reactors (SMR) to secure climate neutral electricity supply in the future – as proposed by billionaire and philanthropist Bill Gates – has been hailed as a climate change solution. In Belgium, which is set to shutter its two remaining nuclear power stations by 2025, the government agreed to invest 100 million euros in the research on SMR.

SMR proponents claim that, once produced in bulk, these small plants are cheaper and safer thanks to advanced reactor designs and can be operated with converted short-lived radioactive materials, solving the waste problem.

But two assessments commissioned by the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE) have found that these tens of thousands of small reactors would carry enormous risks with regard to the proliferation of weapons-grade materials and will probably never be as cheap as their advocates say.

What is different in Germany compared to other countries in Europe which embrace nuclear as a CO2-free solution?

Germany not only has strong public support for, and a long history of, anti-nuclear sentiment, it also has only 11 percent of nuclear left in its power mix. Leaving it behind entirely is therefore a more obvious and easy decision than for other countries, such as France, where the share of nuclear power in domestic generation stands at 70.6 percent, but also in Bulgaria with 40.8 percent, in Sweden with 29.8 percent (in Spain: 22.2%, Russia at 20.%, United States at 19.7%, UK 16%, all in 2020).

Historians also explain the different attitude towards nuclear with the different reactions to the Chernobyl accident, which was felt much closer and more threatening to Germans compared to French or UK citizens. Another explanation for Germany’s sensitivity to nuclear power is that early on, the post-war critique of nuclear weapons was linked to the civilian use of nuclear fission. (A second wave of the German peace movement in the 1980s would also bolster a younger generation’s resistance to nuclear power.)

And even if there are people who make a case for nuclear for climate protection reasons, the exit has now proceeded too far to be reversed, and there is simply no influential political power that would consider re-opening the painful, decade-long debate on nuclear power that has finally been put to rest. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/qa-why-germany-phasing-out-nuclear-power-and-why-now

December 30, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, Germany, politics international | Leave a comment

France to lead the European Council – a worrying situation as Macron cosies up to polluting corporations, especially nuclear.

In January, France will take on the rotating Presidency of the Council of
the EU for six months. This Presidency will have a particular resonance
both in France itself, coinciding as it does with Emmanuel Macron’s
re-election campaign, and at the European level, with many critical pieces
of legislation and policy on the line.

It is therefore worrying that this
Presidency has been prepared in close collaboration with the French
corporate sector, and is setting a policy agenda that strongly reflects
business demands.

In the name of climate action, the French Government is
pushing for more public support and funding for controversial industries,
including a renewed push for the nuclear sector. For the sake of nuclear
energy, the French Government appears willing to undermine the integrity of
the European Green Deal and other EU policies on the climate crisis, for
instance with the demand that gas is seen as ‘green’ in the Green
Taxonomy which will direct financial flows accordingly, and generally
through the prioritisation of industry-pushed ‘techno-fixes’ instead of
structural changes to make our lives more sustainable.

Corporate Europe 20th Dec 2021

https://corporateeurope.org/en/under-influence-distorted-priorities

December 30, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, France | Leave a comment

Nuclear Twilight – the ”limited” nuclear war

‘Nuclear twilight’: Something else to worry about, Stuff Gwynne Dyer05:00, Dec 30 2021 ”………………… A different team of researchers discovered nuclear winter almost 40 years ago, and it helped to convince the great powers they must never fight a nuclear war.

The reason we don’t worry much about nuclear winter now is that we think they have finally learned that lesson.

True, there are now other countries with nuclear weapons that don’t seem immune to outbreaks of major war, like India and Pakistan. However, everybody assumed the damage would be confined to their own region.

If we don’t let it escalate into a superpower clash, the rest of the world should be all right.

Wrong.

The Indian and Pakistani nuclear arsenals each amount to about 150 warheads now. That’s a modest number compared to the thousands held by the superpowers, but it turns out to be quite enough to cause…let’s call it a nuclear twilight.

What makes this so worrisome is that India and Pakistan have already fought three full-scale wars and half a dozen major skirmishes since they got their independence.

Another is entirely possible, and the risk of escalation to nuclear weapons would be very high, for two reasons.

First, most of their nuclear-capable aircraft and missiles are vulnerable to being destroyed on the ground in a surprise attack.

Secondly, the two countries are so close together that only a very brief warning time is available. In these circumstances, a policy of ‘launch on warning’, with all the risk of mistakes that entails, is the only rational option for both sides

The first victims of such a war would be Pakistani and Indian civilians, because cities will be on the target lists: that’s where the major ports, airfields and critical infrastructure are.

Robock’s team calculated that those burning cities would loft enough ‘black carbon’ into the stratosphere to create a shroud of soot over the whole world within a few weeks.

t wouldn’t be the full-dress nuclear winter of superpower war, with ‘darkness at noon’. However, 300 nuclear explosions in the Indian subcontinent, most of them airbursts over cities, would dim the sun enough to drop temperatures and severely damage crop yields in the main food-producing regions of the planet.

The main effects would be a severe drop in the average global temperature and a comparable decline in global food production – with the worst-hit areas being in the Northern Hemisphere, north of latitude 30°N. (Almost all of India and Pakistan are south of that.)

It’s counter-intuitive, but that’s the way the climate system works.

The most important ‘breadbaskets’ of the planet – grain-growing areas that produce a big crop surplus for export – are the United States, Canada and Europe (including European Russia) – and they are all just north of 30.

The dimming effects of an Indo-Pak nuclear war in 2025, say, would drop the average global temperature by 5 °C over all the continents, but in the key regions of North America and Europe it could reach 10 °C colder.

That maximum cooling would be reached in the fourth year after the war, and would gradually return to ‘normal’ by around year 15.

Australia, Brazil and Argentina, the Southern Hemisphere’s bread-baskets, might still be able to export some grain, but they would not be remotely capable of compensating for the huge shortfalls of food in the Northern Hemisphere.

Tens, maybe hundreds of millions would starve in the poorer parts of the north, and scrabbling for food in the cold and the dark would certainly take our minds off our longer-term problem: global heating.

But when the effects of the local nuclear war in the Indian subcontinent finally faded, it would be right back to that bigger climate crisis.

And it would be bigger, for carbon dioxide would not have stopped accumulating during the hungry years. Indeed, the world might find that it was returning not to the average global temperature of +1.3 °C that prevailed when the Indo-Pak war started, but to a climate that was now hovering on the brink of +2.0 °C. https://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/opinion/300487679/nuclear-twilight-something-else-to-worry-about

December 30, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, climate change, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The science-based case for excluding Nuclear Fission Technologies from the EU Taxonomy

The question whether nuclear fission energy complies with the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) criteria of the EU Taxonomy was the focus of the Technical Expert Group (TEG) DNSH assessment on nuclear fission technologies which recommended to the Commission that nuclear should not be included in the EU Taxonomy of environmentally sustainable activities.

The independent scientific evidence which the TEG presented to the European Commission, shows evidence of adverse impacts to the natural environment arising from the many processes involved in the nuclear power lifecycle (from uranium mining to waste disposal) that are operational today.

The Argument against Nuclear Power as Sustainable for FinancePetitions.net, 26 Dec 21, Europe’s ‘science-based’ Sustainable Finance Taxonomy is politicised to include nuclear power.

The Science-based case for excluding Nuclear Fission Technologies from the EU Taxonomy One of the most influential policy initiatives of the European Commission in the past years has been the “EU Taxonomy”, essentially a shopping list of investments that may be considered environmentally sustainable across six environmental objectives.

To be deemed EU Taxonomy aligned, the activity must demonstrate a substantial contribution to one environmental objective, such as climate change mitigation, whilst causing no significant harm to the remaining five environmental objectives (climate change adaptation, sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, transition to a circular economy, pollution prevention and control, and protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems).

All eligible activities are required to comply with technical screening criteria (TSC) for ‘substantial contribution’ and ‘do no significant harm’ and to demonstrate that social safeguards are in place.

The EU Taxonomy provides a common language for sustainability reporting, a foundation for green bond reporting and much more. It is intended to be used by international financial markets participants whose products are sold within the EU in order to evaluate the sustainability of their underlying investments. The use of the EU Taxonomy is furthermore compulsory for the EU and member states when introducing requirements and standards regarding environmental sustainability of financial products, such as an EU ecolabel for investment products or an EU Green Bond Standard.

It will also apply to 37% of activities earmarked as ‘climate-friendly’ financed by the EU COVID-19 recovery funding. Its science-based approach is designed to give confidence to a wide range of international stakeholders that environmental claims are not greenwashing.

Taking into account the significant financial implications of adopting the TEG recommendations, it became the starting point of intense behind-door lobbying. France led a coalition of 10 EU Member States arguing that nuclear fission as well as gas-fired power plants should be included in the Taxonomy. Together with Finland (Olkiluoto-3), France is at present the only EU country constructing a new nuclear power plant (Flamanville-3). The Finnish and French construction sites were meant to be the industrial demonstration of an evolutionary nuclear technology (the “European Pressurised water Reactor” or EPR). Olkiluoto-3 was meant to start generating power in 2009, followed by Flamanville-3 in 2012. Instead, the projects turned out to have multiple engineering difficulties and financial constraints that resulted in significant delays culminating in missed deadlines for various production start dates and tripling unit cost……………………. the independent scientific evidence which the TEG presented to the European Commission, shows evidence of adverse impacts to the natural environment arising from the many processes involved in the nuclear power lifecycle (from uranium mining to waste disposal) that are operational today. …………

Does the present generation of nuclear fission power plants ‘do no significant harm’? To answer this question, two specific issues for nuclear power stand out: the risk of a catastrophic accident and the management of high-level nuclear waste (HLW)………………………………

Especially relevant for nuclear fission power is the fact that the liability of the operator in the case of a severe accident is limited and the remaining costs are (largely) taken on by the state (privatization of profits, socialization of risks).

The Taxonomy architecture is not designed to cater for such risks that carry an intergenerational impact lasting for thousands of years, making it an unsuitable instrument to decide on the sustainable nature of nuclear power. The characteristics and nature of HLW generated by the nuclear fission process presents long-term intergenerational risks and thereby challenge the principle of ‘do no significant harm’ to the extent that nuclear fission energy may not be considered eligible for the EU Taxonomy.

This was made abundantly clear to the Commission in the TEG’s recommendations, which were not published in their entirety. Independent, scientific, peer-reviewed evidence compiled by TEG provided confirmation of the risk of significant harm arising from nuclear waste. The back end of the fuel cycle is currently dominated by the containment of spent fuel rods and waste from nuclear power facilities. Safe and secure long-term storage of nuclear waste remains unresolved and has to be demonstrated in its operational complexity. ……….

The fact that a ‘solution’ has to be found for the existing quantities of waste (as well spent fuel as conditioned high level waste forms), and that geological disposal is the least bad solution for this, does not imply that nuclear power can suddenly be classified as a ‘green’ energy source.

Other concerns with regard to DNSH criteria Nuclear fission power plants require about three cubic metres of cooling water per megawatt hour (MWh) produced. A nuclear plants’ cooling water consumption is higher than that of fossil-fuel plants. Throughout the world, new nuclear plants and existing plants increasingly face cooling water scarcity induced by heat waves, a situation that is likely to be aggravated by climate change…..

For reasons of having access to enough cooling water, nuclear plants are mostly sited in coastal or estuarine locations, but this makes them vulnerable to flooding and extreme events that climate change may occasion. The siting of nuclear power plants along coastal zones presents adaptation risks associated with sea-level rise, water temperature rise, coastal erosion as well as natural catastrophes such as the Fukushima disaster demonstrates. ………………..

when major nuclear plant accidents occur significant land areas become unsuitable for human habitation (e.g. Chernobyl, Fukushima). …….

Surface or underground mining and the processing of uranium ore can substantially damage surrounding ecosystems and waterways. The huge volumes of associated mining waste in developing countries are normally not considered in life cycle waste inventories of nuclear energy producing countries. More critically, the adverse effects on local environmental conditions of routine discharging of nuclear isotopes to the air and water at reprocessing plants have not been considered thoroughly enough. A number of adverse impacts (of radiation) on soil/sediment, benthic flora and fauna and marine mammals has been demonstrated.

Should nuclear fission power be included in the taxonomy as a transition activity? According to Article 10 (2) of the Taxonomy Regulation, which is the law underpinning the EU Taxonomy, activities that are incompatible with climate neutrality but considered necessary in the transition to a climate-neutral economy can be labelled and supported as ‘transition activities’…………

A key principle of the EU Taxonomy is to avoid environmentally harmful ‘lock-in’ effects of activities. Lock-in describes the phenomenon whereby it is difficult to set a technical and political system on a new path once it has developed a momentum of its own and once it is ‘locked-in’ on a certain path. ……

Nuclear fission plants require at least 10 years to be built (with recent experience even pointing in the direction of 20 years for the EPR), while they have to remain operational for 50-60 years. Decommissioning will then take another 20-50 years. This means that a decision to build new nuclear power plants will lock in societies for some 80-130 years, not counting the years needed to store spent fuel or dispose of high-level waste. …

A decision to include nuclear fission into the energy mix of the EU Taxonomy sustainable activities will during this period therefore channel much needed capital away from renewable energy technologies, which do not present long-term and catastrophic risks to humans and the environment as nuclear fission does. ……………………………………..

Signed by EU Taxonomy subgroup DNSH TEG members and expert supporters:

Dawn Slevin, Dr. Erik Laes, Paolo Masoni, Jochen Krimphoff, Fabrizio Varriale, Andrea Di Turi, Dr. Ulrich Ofterdinger, Dr. Dolores Byrne, Dr. Petra Kuenkel, Ursula Hartenberger, Kosha Joubert

Link to PDF Version of the Statement of Concern sent to the Commission on 21 Dec 21:

Click to access statement-on-nuclear-for-publication-21dec21.pdf

https://www.petitions.net/the_argument_against_nuclear_power_as_sustainable_for_finance .petitions.net/the_argument_against_nuclear_power_as_sustainable_for_finance

December 27, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

European Commission experts call on EU not to label nuclear ‘green’.

Commission experts call on EU not to label nuclear ‘green’, https://euobserver.com/climate/153891, By WESTER VAN GAAL 22 Dec 21

BRUSSELS, Thirteen members of the EU Commission’s Technical Expert Group (TEG) put out a petition on Tuesday (21 December) calling on nuclear energy not to be labelled as ‘green’.

“We recommend that nuclear fission has no place on the EU taxonomy of sustainable activities,” the group, led by Dawn Slevin, a financial expert and core member of the commission’s financial stability TEG, wrote.

Dealing with the “do no significant harm” principle in the taxonomy, they concluded nuclear may damage the environment due to the need to store it in underground bunkers for thousands of years, and “because the risk of a severe nuclear accident cannot be excluded, even in the best commercially available nuclear power plants.”

They also warn against politicisation of the rules. “Proponents of nuclear energy use the taxonomy to put a ‘scientific’ stamp on what is primarily a political position on nuclear fission energy aiming to satisfy the few EU member states that wish to promote the associated technologies,” the petition states.

France is spearheading an alliance of 10 member states that argue that nuclear fission and gas-fired power plants should be included in the taxonomy.

The TEG members point out that France and Finland are currently the only EU countries actively building nuclear facilities.

The Finnish Olkiluoto-3 was meant to start generating power in 2009, followed by the French Flamanville-3 in 2012.

However, both are still not operational, tripling anticipated costs, the group wrote. The group includes Paolo Masoni, a nuclear engineer, and Eric Laes, a post-doctoral researcher specialising in atomic energy at the Technical University of Eindhoven.

Politicised debate

In recent months, the decision on whether to include nuclear and gas in the taxonomy has become politicised.

Last week, EU internal market commissioner Thierry Breton told five European newspapers, including Die Welt, that “it is a lie that the EU can become CO2-neutral without nuclear power.”

French president Emmanuel Macron said last week that France and Germany will try to find a compromise on whether the EU should label nuclear and gas as green investments.

But on Monday, the German Greens, part of the new ruling coalition, came out strongly against nuclear, reiterating their opposition to the inclusion of nuclear in the taxonomy.

“The German government’s stance is that nuclear power is not one of the sustainable forms of energy [that] remains,” environment minister Steffi Lemke told fellow EU environment ministers in Brussels on Monday.

German climate and economics minister Robert Habeck later echoed his colleague on German radio Deutschlandfunk, saying: “I do not think nuclear power is the right technology.”

However, chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) did not make such a clear statement at the last EU summit on Friday – and admitted Germany will probably not be able to stop the French push for nuclear.

“France is taking a different path [than Germany]. Other countries do as well,” he said.

“That is why it’s important that you can follow your paths and at the same time stay together across Europe,” he added.

The commission planned to present its decision on nuclear and gas on Wednesday, but this has been postponed until mid-January next year.

It now plans to consult a draft version of the taxonomy with member states before the end of the year or at the start of January 2022 – a process that will be clarified on Wednesday.

The Sustainable Finance Platform, a group of 57 NGOs, scientific and financial experts will also be consulted.

The commission has faced backlash in the past from some of its members, including one of the signatories of the petition, for allowing gas an nuclear to be considered in what was meant to be a science-led exercise.

December 24, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

European Commission facing a backlash from Greta Thunberg and environmentalists over plans to include nuclear and gas in the EU ”green” taxonomy.

The European Commission is facing a backlash from Greta Thunberg and
fellow climate activists over plans to include gas and nuclear energy in a
“green” investment guidebook

. Both energy sources are expected to
feature in the next part of the EU’s “taxonomy for sustainable
activities”, which is expected at the end of the year, following a period
of intense political bargaining between the commission president, Ursula
von der Leyen; the French president, Emmanuel Macron; and Germany’s new
chancellor, Olaf Scholz.

The EU taxonomy is a green classification system
that is intended to guide investors to projects that are in line with
Europe’s goal of net zero emissions by 2050 and better protection of
nature.

Guardian 21st Dec 2021

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/21/eu-in-row-over-inclusion-of-gas-and-nuclear-in-sustainability-guidance

December 24, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Rapid shrinking of glaciers in the Himalayas

Glaciers in the Himalayas are shrinking far more rapidly than glaciers in
other parts of the world, threatening the water supply of millions of
people in Asia, new research warns. The study, led by scientists at the
University of Leeds, found that in recent decades, Himalayan glaciers have
lost ice 10 times more quickly than they have on average since the Little
Ice Age, when glaciers expanded around 400-700 years ago.

Independent 21st Dec 2021

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/himalayas-glaciers-melting-water-ice-b1979531.html

December 24, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ASIA, climate change | Leave a comment

Costa Rica was the star at COP26 Climate Summit

If there had been a popularity contest at Cop26, the Costa Rican
president, Carlos Alvarado Quesada, would have been a clear winner.
Leonardo DiCaprio, Jeff Bezos, Boris Johnson and Prince William all wanted
to speak with the leader of the tiny Central American country, eager to
bask in its green glow.

The climate summit in Glasgow was, in effect, Costa
Rica’s Super Bowl, another chance to show off its impressive
environmental credentials. It is the only tropical country that has
successfully halted and reversed deforestation, a commitment dozens of
others made at Cop26 but are far from achieving. Costa Rica, which
celebrated its bicentenary in 2021, is aiming for total decarbonisation by
2050 – not just a net zero target – and is helping lead the world on
efforts to protect 30% of the Earth by the end of this decade.

From
Christiana Figueres, who was head of the UN climate convention that
achieved the Paris agreement in 2015, to Carlos Manuel Rodríguez, chief
executive of the Global Environment Facility, Costa Ricans are routinely
found in international leadership positions on the environment.

Guardian 22nd Dec 2021

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/22/follow-the-green-leader-why-everyone-from-jeff-bezos-to-boris-johnson-is-looking-to-costa-rica-aoe

December 24, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, SOUTH AMERICA | Leave a comment

European Commission will decide in 2022 if it considers nuclear energy as a ”climate friendly” investment.

The European Commission plans to finish next year its long-awaited rules
on whether to label gas and nuclear energy as climate-friendly investments
under EU green finance rules, its environment policy chief said on Monday.
The European Union’s executive Commission is considering whether to include
nuclear and natural gas in its “sustainable finance taxonomy”, a rulebook
that will restrict which activities can be labelled as climate-friendly
investments.

Reuters 20th Dec 2021

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/eu-plans-finish-green-investment-rules-gas-nuclear-next-year-2021-12-20/

December 24, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

European Commission experts call on EU not to label nuclear ‘green’