Environmentalists sue EU over ‘greenwashing’ planes and ships

Several environmental organizations are suing the European Commission for not imposing sufficiently strict CO2 standards on member states under the 2015 Paris Agreement on global warming. First and foremost, they are calling for fossil-fuel-powered planes and ships to be removed from the EU’s list of sustainable investments, which they say is an example of greenwashing.

The organizations are relying on a recent European Court of Human Rights ruling that “requires states to adopt targets consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5° C” by the Paris Agreement. They had previously asked the European Commission to adjust the so-called “taxonomy for sustainable activities”, but the EU executive rejected the request.

The taxonomy is intended to clarify for investors, such as banks and pension funds, which investments are sustainable and contribute to achieving climate goals. In shipping and aviation, criteria are included for making aircraft more efficient to reduce fuel consumption.

‘Inadequate emission levels’

Specifically, the organizations are asking the Commission to adjust downward the allowable emission levels for each of the 27 member states in various sectors, from construction and agriculture to transportation, etc. “The annual emission levels decided by the European Commission are inadequate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and are contrary to environmental legislation,” they argue.

For example, 90% of the aircraft soon to be delivered by Airbus would be ‘green’ enough, even though those planes fly on polluting kerosene just like their predecessors. Cruise ships that run on liquid gas also meet last year’s criteria. According to Fossil Free NL, the ships are still highly polluting because they emit CO2 and leak methane gas.

However, the aviation industry is also uneasy about aircraft with sustainability labels. Executive vice president of Airbus Wouter van Wersch, for example, says in De Volkskrant newspaper that he does not want to call the new aircraft his company is selling to KLM “green,” but at most “the greenest on the market right now.”

For the plaintiffs, the EU ignores “that it is better to invest in sustainable alternatives to flying, such as high-speed trains.” They also note that planes and ships last between 20 and 50 years. “This means that additional investment in new planes will exacerbate the climate crisis for decades to come and stand in the way of investment in real climate solutions,” the organizations argue.

CAN Europe, Global Legal Action Network, Fossil Free NL, Dryade, and Protect Our Winters Austria are among the organizations filing lawsuits.

Member states drag their feet

The European Commission considers the criticism “unfounded” and expects the taxonomy to bring change. According to the Commission, the scheme encourages the development of electricity—and hydrogen-powered aircraft and using more sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).

The Commission writes that the current generation of kerosene-powered aircraft shows a “significant improvement” in consumption and emissions compared to older aircraft.

The EU and its 27 member states want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% from 1990 by 2030. However, environmental organizations say the EU must accelerate its cuts and achieve “at least 65% reduction if it wants to be a credible player.” They also call for accelerating the use of renewable energy sources.

The project’s roadmaps to reduce CO2 emissions for the various member states were to be updated by June 30. By that deadline, Brussels had received only four, notable from the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. For environmental organizations, this is also evidence that many member states are again postponing urgent climate change action.