On the 28th of November 2019 the European Parliament in Brussels voted in favor of nuclear energy, because it is defined as CO2- and climate-neutral.

This happened when a resolution proposal for the coming UN Climate Conference in Madrid had to be approved (1). The leader of the Green Parties in the EP, Ska Keller, voted in favor, whereas a majority of the Greens did not, because the nuclear question is the most basic one for green politics, historically speaking. It seems however that this is going to change and a division of the green parties over the issue seems to be inevitable.

This decision was taken on the same day as the declaration about a „European climate emergency“ which was accompanied by another decision about a trillions of € budget for the climate in relation to a „Green New Deal“ and „digitization“ as the major issues of the new European Commission under Ursula von der Leyen who had her very first day as the new President of this Commission in the EP.

What does all this mean? At this point some questions have to be asked:

Since its beginnings in World War II the nuclear question has, first of all, always to do with the military. So, is the military behind the CO2-climate change-theses?

Is the „Green New Deal“ that propagates the change toward a new „green“ civilization globally, related to the interests of the military?

So, are the Green parties who are just now coming to power in Europe and are propagating the same Green New Deal, themselves related to the military, as well?

Do green voters and party members know about these potential relationships?

What is „green“ about that Deal, the military, digitization and nuclear energy?

What does it mean for the credibility of the CO2-thesis that the military joins the chorus of the UN and its IPCC, and at the same time uses its own technologies to manipulate and weaponize the weather, worldwide and for decades, already?

Do the youth movement of Fridays for Future, Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion never mention the military and nuclear weapons, readioactivity, uranium mining and nuclear waste as dangers for the Planet, including its climate, because they are led from above?

If nuclear energy is declared „good for the climate“, what does it mean that in fact it is deadly for living beings, nature and the Planet? That it is destroying the protective ozone layer, for instance?

Will the nuclear industry now have access to the billions of € that are supposed to save the earth from a supposed climate catastrophe?

It is urgent to know the answer to these questions, because it would thoroughly clear up the widespread confusion about the climate, about all things allegedly „green“, and about CO2 which is in fact needed for real green life processes. And we may come up to understand that we are being led by the nose for a reason, and that what is nowadays called „green“ has very little to do with nature and life.

After all, the new „green“ seems to be olive-green!

Prof. Claudia von Werlhof, Planetary Movement for Mother Earth, Austria, Research associate, Centre for Reserch on Globalization (CRG)

Notes

1. Spiegel online, 30.11.2019, Markus Becker: Klima-Resolution im EU-Parlament. Grüne Kernspaltung, Die Achse des Guten, 29.11.2019, Max Roland: „Änderungsantrag 38“: Das EU-Parlament ist für Atomkraft