The vote in Strasbourg on Wednesday followed months of intense debate over the inclusion of natural gas and nuclear power in the EU’s economic labeling “taxonomy” as the bloc tries to reduce its reliance on Russian gas while meeting the its commitment to zero net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 in order to limit global warming. Only 278 members of the European Parliament voted against labeling gas and nuclear investments as “green”, falling short of the 353 majority needed to reject the legal act. Member states have until July 11 to oppose the proposal, but EU officials said it was unlikely to be ruled out. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, defended the new classification, saying she was “deeply convinced” it would help the bloc’s clean energy transition. But campaigners said the law discredits the EU’s efforts to establish itself as a global leader in climate policy. Other countries that have created similar labeling schemes, including Russia, South Africa and Bangladesh, have excluded natural gas from the list of “green” investments. Greenpeace, the environmental campaign group, threatened the committee with legal action after the vote, describing the result as “outrageous”. “We will fight it in the courts. The EU Commission’s shameful behind-the-scenes dealings on behalf of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries will not help them there,” said Ariadna Rodrigo, Greenpeace spokesperson for sustainable finance in Europe. Austria and Luxembourg said after the vote they would challenge the law at the European Court of Justice after threatening legal action following the Commission’s initial announcement on the classification of natural gas and nuclear. The result was “a very clear blow to Europe’s credibility and leadership. The EU was the pioneer of the whole classification and others are doing a much better job,” said Tsvetelina Kuzmanova, policy adviser for the environmental think-tank E3G. Some European, as well as Ukrainian, politicians have said that classifying natural gas and nuclear as viable activities would deepen Europe’s dependence on Russian gas and funnel more money to Moscow. Russia also produces about a fifth of the world’s uranium fuel used in nuclear reactors. Paul Tang, a Socialist MEP who led a cross-party coalition opposing the legal act, said the European Parliament had sent “the wrong message to the world” by labeling natural gas as green, adding that Russia’s state energy companies “Gazprom and Rosneft will be pleased with this result.” The Commission has said that natural gas and nuclear will only be considered green if they are used to transition from dirtier fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Natural gas projects should only be considered if direct emissions are limited and they switch to fully renewable energy by the end of 2035, according to the legal text. Nuclear power can only be financed if it meets certain standards for the disposal of radioactive waste.

Several financial institutions, including the European Investment Bank, the EU’s lending arm, have already said they are likely to ignore gas and nuclear designation. “In our view, fossil gas and nuclear should not have access to the same cheap funding as renewables, as this will inevitably crowd out funding for the green transition, thereby slowing its progress,” he said. Anders Schelde, chief investment officer at the Danish pension fund. AkademikerPension. Controversy over the vote was sparked by the way the committee proposed the law, linking gas and nuclear in one legal act as a compromise between pro-nuclear French and German pro-gas forces in Brussels. Before the vote, several MEPs said they approved nuclear as a transition fuel rather than natural gas, but the construction of the legal act would force them to vote for both.

Climate Capital

Where climate change meets business, markets and politics. Explore the FT’s coverage here. Curious about FT’s commitments to environmental sustainability? Learn more about our scientific goals here