It is a new experience for the Greens that they have to justify the nuclear phase-out.
The so-called taxonomy - a European project for the classification of sustainable investments - is the external reason for this.
The EU countries that rely on nuclear power, especially France, see their financing as a contribution to a sustainable, climate-neutral energy industry.
The new German government finds itself cornered as a result.
If Brussels takes the “French” route, it would be a severe blow to the credibility of the nuclear phase-out and German climate policy.
But the traffic light coalition cannot avoid a banal insight: nuclear power is CO2-free. That is one reason why the climate movement is split over the question of whether nuclear power can make a contribution to climate neutrality. This is linked to a number of unpleasant questions about the nuclear phase-out of an industrial nation: Why does it have to invest all the more in a fossil, base-load-capable power source in gas-fired power plants in order to compensate for the coal phase-out? Why is it failing to meet its climate targets even though it has the means to avoid it? Why does it expect its citizens to undergo a transformation of which it is uncertain in which future it will lead the country?
The new red-green anti-nuclear power movement must therefore switch to sideline shows in order to somehow justify the exit.
Nuclear power is far too expensive, and it is not sustainable, because disposal is a permanent burden on the environment.
Both are good arguments that also offer shelter to the FDP.
In terms of climate policy, however, they are aiming in the wrong direction.
Nuclear power still remains CO2-free.
When it comes to climate neutrality, sustainability cannot be put into perspective.
And the energy transition is also costing too much money.
Germany would like to remain Europe's royal climate protector.
But the child in Brussels calls out: The emperor is naked!