So, after much debate the EU decided that gas wasn’t a fossil fuel, merely a ‘transition’ fuel under its EU Taxonomy, next up is nuclear weapons.

The European Parliament has approved a change to its sustainable finance benchmarks that allow companies engaged in the production “controversial weapons”.

This could mean that depleted-uranium ammunition, and possibly even nuclear weapons, could achieve a ESG label.

To some extent it is hard to not see this as a response to more uncertain times, where investment is now perceived as important to boost the European arms manufacturers. Although not all parties will have been happy at the change.

But a wider issue is that if a ‘green’ taxonomy can be stretched, even for pragmatic reasons, then what is it really? And, moreover, is any standard safe from the accusation of ‘greenwashing’?

---