Is it green gas?

LONDON – The European Union has an ambitious climate law to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030.

This is a big cut and asks a crucial question:

how long and how long the blockade of 27 countries they depend on the gas to achieve that, and how quickly will it move away from all fossil fuels?

Natural gas, more accurately described as methane gas or fossil gas, produces fewer carbon dioxide emissions than coal, but much more than wind and solar energy.

So, should the gas be called “green”?

This is exactly what the EU executive has proposed.

The measure will be voted on in Parliament on Wednesday and is more than just a question of labeling.

If the proposal passes, said Matina Stevis-Gridneff, head of the Times’ Brussels office, it means European governments, businesses and banks they will be able to subsidize or channel low-cost loans for gas projects.

Gas currently represents a quarter of electricity in the entire European Union and almost all of its heat.

Most of that gas comes from Russia, but European politicians are scrambling to get gas from elsewhere, including United States of Americato wean the continent of Russian fuel.

Beyond the immediate political decision faced by European legislators, gas must face a showdown:

How much should the world depend on gas, for how long, and who should burn it?

The direction that rich and industrialized Europe takes this week will undoubtedly have a influence in other countries.

The European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union, states that gas is a low-carbon fuel, which is fair to coal.

The commission says it will closely monitor gas projects and allow banks and governments to offer them cheaper loans.

But not everyone is buying it.

A broad coalition of European lawmakers say the move is counterproductive and goes against the essence of Europe’s commitments to carbon neutrality.

There is widespread opposition to the proposal to classify gas, in addition to nuclear energy, as green energy.

Indeed, the Commission’s ability to get Parliament’s blessing on Wednesday is at stake.

The legislation was thought to be about 20 votes less than the majority needed to pass.

Opponents want Europe to double down on expanding renewable energy sources.

“Now everyone knows we need to get rid of any incentives that would lead to more fossil gas exploration,” said Bas Eickhout, an EU member of parliament representing an alliance of green and regional parties.

“By labeling fossil gas ‘green’, the EU is sending a catastrophic message to the private sector and the rest of the world that gas would be as legitimate as renewables.”

The move would allow the European Union, as well as individual European governments and the private sector, to support new pipelines and immediately import liquefied gas from abroad.

Russia has cleverly used its gas as leverage against Europe.

In the past two weeks it has cut gas deliveries to the continent, prompting Germany to do so incorporate coal into its energy matrix and contemplate the rationing of electricity.

European lawmakers are increasingly arguing that this proposal will allow them to quickly raise funds to build more gas-based energy projects to reduce their dependence on Russia.

European politicians are quite frank about this choice.

“The overriding strategic decision is to separate from Russian oil and gas,” said Frans Timmermans, EU Vice-President for Energy and Climate in May.

“We cannot depend on Russian energy supplies.”

The gas debate is not just about whether there is room for gas in a net-zero future.

It’s about who can produce those emissions.

Africa faces a huge demand for new energy sources. Several countries also have vast gas reserves.

Should they be able to develop their own resources for their own industrial growth?

For now, what we have seen is something else:

European countries woo African countries ship its liquefied gas on ships to heat and power European homes.

c.2022 The New York Times Company