The joint ECON and ENVI Committees hold a vote on a motion for resolution objecting to the Complementary Climate Delegated Act (CDA) under the Taxonomy Regulation, adopted by the Commission on 9 March 2022. Bas EICKHOUT (Greens/EFA, NL) explains the Parliament's position. The vote is adopted 76 in favour, 62 against and 4 abstentions. The resolution will next be voted in the July plenary where an absolute majority will be required.

statement

vote

EICKHOUT, Bas (Greens/EFA, NL)

Transeuropean Energy Networks (T)

energy union (T)

European Green Deal (T)

Taxonomy regulation: extracts from the vote and statement by Bas EICKHOUT (Greens/EFA, NL)

Sign showing results of the vote 76 in favour, 62 against, 4 abstentions. The resolution is adopted. Applause and atmosphere after vote..

SOUNDBITE (English), Bas EICKHOUT (Greens/EFA, NL), Author, This about the proposal of the commission where they are saying that any investment in gas and nuclear, we want to call that sustainable. We want to call that green. Well, very clearly we do not agree. I think on nuclear, it's obvious, but I think on gas it's also very important to realise with that we are basically supporting more dependency of gas while we are at the same time fighting to become less dependent of gas. So it's totally inconsistent. It's not logical. So that's why we tabled an objection saying, please commission, rethink your proposal and do not call an investment in gas and nuclear green. Well, we now today had the committee votes and to be very fair, it was a broader majority supporting our objection than initially expected. So we have a good majority for that. But in the plenary we need an absolute majority. So we now have to prepare for the plenary vote first week of July. That's still a big battle to go. So happy for today. But the big step is still to come.

SOUNDBITE (English), Bas EICKHOUT (Greens/EFA, NL), Author,  The proposal for calling an investment in gas green was done in December, in January. So there was no war yet. And then the narrative that the commission has always said, you know, gas is a transition. But I think more and more people realised since the war started is this transition story of gas as a transition is dead. And the only thing we now will see is that we need some investments in LNG, but not so much in just our dependency in gas pipelines to Russia. However, these criteria do not fit LNG so LNG will not comply anyhow. So an investment in LNG will never be called green because that's not how the criteria work. So it just shows, you that this proposal is obsolete. And in that sense I think it's the only right thing we do now as a parliament and that is voting it down and ask the Commission to reassess what they want to do with our gas dependency.

SOUNDBITE (English), Bas EICKHOUT (Greens/EFA, NL), Author,  I think if the Commission is wise, what they will conclude from a plenary objection is that there is no support for calling investments in gas and nuclear green. There is just no support for. That doesn't mean that we do not need a discussion on our energy system and there are more options there, of course, you can also think of a way of looking at the taxonomy where you do not have only one label, so either you are green or there's nothing. You can also think of a system where there is green and an in-between category. So the commission has many options and I think that's also good. If we object that then at least the message to the commission is rethink your taxonomy, maintain its credibility, and have a better go at our energy system instead of this green or non-green.