EU Does Nothing, News Reports

From Reuters

BRUSSELS, July 6 (Reuters) - The European Parliament on Wednesday backed EU rules labelling investments in gas and nuclear power plants as climate-friendly, throwing out an attempt to block the law that has exposed deep rifts between countries over how to fight climate change.

That just about gives you the short version. Some points to clear up: this (apparently) isn't a rash movement that is occurring only because of the current energy crisis. The question of whether nuclear energy and gas could be classified as 'green' aka sustainable under the EU taxonomy was put forward back in 2020, with the rules now in the news being put forward back in early February of this year, prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Secondly, the article doesn't claim that the EU plans to declare that nuclear energy or gas are 'green,' rather that investment into nuclear and gas would count as investment in green energy, which doubtless carries all sorts of financial incentives.  

I'm not educated on ESG, environmental law or energy investment, so I'm tapped for good, non-obvious takes. Let's do media analysis instead.

I saw the article around 14:30 GMT+2, and the Internet Archive has a version from 13:00 GMT+2. In that hour and a half, the article was updated quite a bit.

I include below the text of the article as I originally accessed it, with text in the archived version that got cut in red, and additions that only appear in the updated version in blue.

EU parliament backs labelling gas and nuclear investments as 'green'

BRUSSELS, July 6 (Reuters) - The European Parliament on Wednesday backed EU rules labelling investments in gas and nuclear power plants as climate-friendly, throwing out an attempt to block the law that has exposed deep rifts between countries over how to fight climate change.

The vote paves the way for the European Union proposal to pass into law, unless 20 of the bloc's 27 member states decide to oppose the move, which is seen as very unlikely.

The new rules will add gas and nuclear power plants to the EU "taxonomy" rulebook from 2023, enabling investors to label and market investments in them as green.

Out of 639 lawmakers present, 328 opposed a/the motion that sought to block the EU gas and nuclear proposals., while 278 voted to block the proposals. Some 33 abstained.

Opponents of the new rules failed to secure the 353 votes needed to secure a majority in the 705-seat parliament.

This/the result will be a relief to the European Commission, which proposed the rules in February after more than a year of delay and intense lobbying from governments and the gas and nuclear industries.

"There will be no greenwashing," EU financial services chief Mairead McGuinness said on Tuesday.

The EU taxonomy is a landmark law designed to clear up the murky world of sustainable investing, by ensuring any financial products making eco-friendly claims adhere to strict standards.

The debate over gas and nuclear rules have/has split EU countries, lawmakers and investors. Brussels redrafted the rules multiple times, flip-flopping over whether to grant gas plants a green tag. Its final proposal fuelled fierce debate about how to hit climate goals amid a crisis over dwindling Russian/with Russia over its gas supplies.

Gas is a fossil fuel that produces planet-warming emissions - but far less than coal, and/but some EU states see it as a temporary alternative/transition fuel in the shift away from dirtier coal.

Nuclear energy is free from CO2 emissions but produces radioactive waste. Nuclear backers such as France say it is vital to meet emissions-cutting goals, while opponents cite concerns about waste disposal/Nuclear-reliant France and heavy coal-user Poland were among those backing the new rules. [link]

Slovakian prime minister Eduard Heger said the vote result was good for energy security and emissions-cutting targets.

"We'll remain on the way to climate neutrality by 2050," he said in a tweet.

Luxembourg and Austria, which both oppose nuclear power, have also warned against labelling gas as green, saying they would challenge the law in the EU's top court.

Austria and Luxembourg's governments have threatened to sue the EU if its proposal becomes law, while Denmark and others warned the move would undermine the EU's credibility in fighting climate change if it labelled CO2-emitting gas as green.

"It is neither credible, ambitious nor knowledge-based, endangers our future and is more than irresponsible," Austrian climate minister Leonore Gewessler said.

Climate campaigners criticised the move, with Greenpeace saying it would also mount a legal challenge.

"This is a poor signal to the rest of the world that may undermine the EU's leadership position on climate action," said Anders Schelde, chief investment officer at Danish pension fund AkademikerPension.

But industry groups welcomed the vote. Ingbert Liebing, managing director of Germany's local utility association VKU, called it "an important sign of the role of natural gas as a bridge to achieving climate goals."

The EU taxonomy aims to clear up the murky world of sustainable investing, by ensuring any financial products making eco-friendly claims meet certain standards. Gas plants, for example, must switch to low-carbon gases by 2035 and meet an emissions limit. [link]

Before the vote, lawmakers had/also disagreed on the extent to which/how the law will impact financial markets/Others suggest the taxonomy's political symbolism far outweighs the impact it will have on investors, since it/the law does not prohibit investments in activities without the green label/with some warning that gas and nuclear projects could face higher capital costs if they are denied "green" status.

Is this an update or a rewrite? Halfway through it nearly becomes a different article. 

Some of these updates are trivial, changes to phrasing and punctuation. Others are potentially quite significant for the reader. 

Is it important to know the actual split in the European parliament was 328 to 278, with 33 abstaining and 66 (of the total 705 seats) not present? The margin was small enough that a majority vote in favor of the block from the absentees and abstainees could have turned it around.

Is it important whether it was the nuclear and gas rules or the debate over these rules that have split EU counties, lawmakers and and investors?

Is it important that the mention of coal-heavy Poland was removed and more focus was placed on France? Is there a reason to remove mention of gas and nuclear industry lobbying specifically?

Why was there a complete turnover in quotations, going from one in favor and one against to one in favor and two against? 

Does the tenor of the article change if Luxembourg and Austria are emphasized to oppose nuclear energy and also not want to label gas as green? Is there a difference between those nations challenging the law in the highest courts and them suing the EU?

Also, in a point so obvious it almost didn't occur to me, Russia is mentioned only once, in the context of 'how to hit climate goals' during this crisis. Really? They're ripping each other apart over the climate change implications, rather than how they're actually going to provide energy this winter? I'm out here in the Spanish boonies and the local supermarket gossip is about whether to prioritize food or heat when the long nights come, Reuters wants me to think the parliament faces more political pressure from the sustainability activists than from people whose livelihoods are on the line? That's got to be a disavowal. At least I have the good fortune to spend the cold months in the land of fracking and baconators, I don't want to be on this side of the Atlantic when the pitchforks come out.

I don't think Reuters has any sinister intentions with the changes to article. Doubtless the editors have their reasons, maybe even good ones, for each change. Statements emerge, facts are checked (one hopes), people quoted contact the reporters with requests for context or for their statements to be removed, and the article is revised to reflect those. To their credit, there is at least a counter acknowledging the most recent edit to the piece, even if the content and extent of the changes aren't clear from that. I'm more concerned with who exactly is obsessive enough to basically rewrite half an article within a couple hours of it going live. Ahem. Besides me, a known nutjob. 

Also, if the changes were the result of clearer information and more statements, rather than people calling in to Reuters as a result of seeing the piece, could our media landscape benefit just from waiting a couple hours before publishing? Does anyone need reporting done that quickly if it's going to change just as fast?

----- Baseless speculation and psychoanalysis beyond this point

I'm especially interested in the situation of the vote. Remember, this was not a vote in favor or against the law, it was on whether to support or oppose a block on the law. Voting yes means no change to the taxonomy, voting no means allowing a change to the taxonomy. 

Teach has a lengthy section in Sadly, Porn on the Mytilenean debate (around pages 707-729 in the Kindle version) where he points out how both of the sides managed to work themselves into a rhetorical space where voting for them meant inaction; a vote for Cleon meant not doing anything and letting the Mytilenians get genocided and sold into slavery, a vote for Diodotus meant taking action to prevent actions elsewhere. 

In Brussels, we have a vote where one side is proposing to take action to block a process already in motion, to the end of no change, and another proposing to take no action in order to allow a process already in motion to go on. 

The pressure on the Athenians to conduct this dialogue and second vote came from their own consciences. Politicians do not have consciences, but they do have constituents, and both fill the role of superego. In either case the goal is to justify that you did not take action, since taking action may result in either good or bad things happening, but if you appear to have done nothing you at least avoid taking blame. For Brussels, the relevant flavors are "I didn't vote to change the taxonomy" and "I didn't vote to stop the change." In addition, we have just shy of a hundred members of parliament who abstained or just didn't show up.

328 did nothing to do something, 278 did something to do nothing, 33 did a different something to do meta-nothing, and 66 did meta-nothing to presumably do something else, like being anywhere other than Brussels. Good on them.