Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

A coalition of 226 scientists, financial professionals, and civil society organizations argues that including fossil gas in the EU Taxonomy contradicts climate science and risks turning the framework into a greenwashing tool. The authors highlight the high climate impact of methane leaks and assert that such a move would undermine the EU's global climate leadership and the goals of the Green Deal.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The authors argue that the European Commission's proposal to include fossil gas in the EU Taxonomy is based on "baseless claims" that fossil gas "does no harm to the environment", which they state is "opposed to climate science".
  • Including fossil gas in the taxonomy is described as a move that would transform the EU Taxonomy from a "science-based gold standard to avoid greenwashing" into a "greenwashing tool".
  • The letter highlights the environmental danger of methane, noting its impact on climate change is "up to 84 times greater than CO2 in a 20-year timeframe", and warns that if only "3% of the gas leaks, it can cause more warming than coal".
  • The authors state that many European gas companies fail to properly measure methane emissions within their supply chains or utilize available opportunities to reduce them.
  • The proposal is viewed as being in "direct contradiction" with the EU Green Deal and the EU's higher climate targets, potentially discrediting the EU's "global climate leadership".
  • The authors warn that including fossil gas would lower global ambition and set a precedent for other countries to label a "broad range of fossil fuel investments as sustainable".
  • The letter explicitly argues that neither "coal-to-gas nor cogeneration (CHP)" should be included in the Taxonomy.

Cite the original document

APA
ClientEarth (n.d.). Open Letter - Gas Attack in Taxonomy. https://www.clientearth.org/media/2wynia0v/225-scientists-financials-cso-open-letter-gas-attack-in-eu-taxonomy-march21-clean.pdf
Chicago
ClientEarth. Open Letter - Gas Attack in Taxonomy. n.d. https://www.clientearth.org/media/2wynia0v/225-scientists-financials-cso-open-letter-gas-attack-in-eu-taxonomy-march21-clean.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite press release |author=ClientEarth |title=Open Letter - Gas Attack in Taxonomy |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/2wynia0v/225-scientists-financials-cso-open-letter-gas-attack-in-eu-taxonomy-march21-clean.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@misc{clientearthndopen, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{Open Letter - Gas Attack in Taxonomy}}, publisher = {ClientEarth}, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/2wynia0v/225-scientists-financials-cso-open-letter-gas-attack-in-eu-taxonomy-march21-clean.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated