Nuclear Weapons Are Now ESG Compliant (ft.com) 31
The European Union published guidance on December 30 that reclassified nuclear weapons as acceptable investments under its sustainable finance framework, completing a policy change approved in November that narrowed the definition of banned armaments from "controversial" to "prohibited."
The shift addresses earlier vagueness that the Commission said hindered efforts to raise $932 billion in defense investments over four years. Under the revised rules, only four weapon categories remain expressly outlawed by a majority of EU states: personnel mines, cluster munitions, and biological and chemical weapons. Nuclear weapons manufacturers avoided exclusion because only Austria, Ireland and Malta signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, though all EU members support non-proliferation under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The updated guidance also permits ESG labeling for companies handling depleted uranium for anti-tank ammunition and white phosphorus, which is toxic but not classified as a chemical weapon. European ESG funds currently hold minimal defense stocks, according to Jefferies data. The Commission's notice now makes these investments eligible for funds operating under Article 8 and Article 9 sustainable investment mandates.
The shift addresses earlier vagueness that the Commission said hindered efforts to raise $932 billion in defense investments over four years. Under the revised rules, only four weapon categories remain expressly outlawed by a majority of EU states: personnel mines, cluster munitions, and biological and chemical weapons. Nuclear weapons manufacturers avoided exclusion because only Austria, Ireland and Malta signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, though all EU members support non-proliferation under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The updated guidance also permits ESG labeling for companies handling depleted uranium for anti-tank ammunition and white phosphorus, which is toxic but not classified as a chemical weapon. European ESG funds currently hold minimal defense stocks, according to Jefferies data. The Commission's notice now makes these investments eligible for funds operating under Article 8 and Article 9 sustainable investment mandates.
Pure fusion bombs... (Score:2, Funny)
...without any Uranium or other nuclear casings would by definition be environmental, since they don't have a whole amount of radioactive waste once the deuterium atoms have fused. If the EU upgrades everything to fusion, and phases out fission completely, they would be ESG compliant
It does leave the question of Russia, though. In a hypothetical war, if Russian bombs fall on Europe, would they be ESG compliant? I'm guessing that European bombs falling on Russia would pass all ESG standards, and therefo
Re: (Score:3)
...without any Uranium or other nuclear casings would by definition be environmental, since they don't have a whole amount of radioactive waste once the deuterium atoms have fused. If the EU upgrades everything to fusion, and phases out fission completely, they would be ESG compliant
It does leave the question of Russia, though. In a hypothetical war, if Russian bombs fall on Europe, would they be ESG compliant? I'm guessing that European bombs falling on Russia would pass all ESG standards, and therefore the Russians should have nothing to worry about
Can the European Union sue Russia after a bombing if the nukes they used aren't ESG compliant? As absurd as it sounds, I'm sure somebody in the administration has looked at it as a realistic scenario.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but "pure fusion" bombs are pretty much science fiction at this point. Igniting fusion in LiDu requires a tremendous amount of energy and not an insubstantial flux of neutrons. You're not getting either of those things in a profile suitable for military deployment without a fission primary. It might be a small (maybe even less than a kiloton) primary but you're not getting the Plutonium or Uranium (or maybe Neptunium in some cases) out of there any time soon.
Re: (Score:1)
I have a feeling this article might make more sense if everyone knew what this apparent TLA (Three Letter Acronym) stood for....?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pure fusion bombs...
It is really hard to make nuclear fusion work at all and you want to turn it into a bomb? Good luck with that one, buddy.
Here's a label (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I like my nukes with pretty stickers" (Score:1)
nuke sed
Ahh (Score:2)
Absolutist moral frameworks can be so....unexpectedly flexible.... sometimes, can't they?
First you're all "We live in a post-conflict world, why should we have to spend anything on defense when there are so many other things? We're not like those savage nekulturny Cowboys across the pond, seeing everything through the lens of 'shoot first, ask questions later'. We're sophisticates, living in a post conflict world where - just like The Great Illusion (Angell, 1910) predicted, economic interdependencies mak
Re: (Score:2)
Or Israel: The nation has the imperialism, mass murder and nuclear weapons that define it as a "rogue nation". Instead, the USA likes this country with a criminal avoiding prison by working as its leader and gives it "first-world" status.
Also, the criminal will remain leader for years because Israel is waging war against three neighbours; Palestine/Gaza (finished), Syria and Iran. Better hope there aren't more criminals working as leader of a country with nuclear weapons.
Are they DEI compliant too? (Score:2)
What if the nuke identifies as a MOAB?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Are they DEI compliant too? (Score:1)
Of course. If a plutonium 239 atom decides to identify as zirconium, xenon, and three neutrons...who are you to argue?
Hmmmm.... (Score:1)
So the EU quietly rewrote the rulebook so it can pour nearly a trillion dollars into defence without admitting it’s abandoning its own ethical framework?
Did I get that right?
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:4, Informative)
1. It was not done "quietly", it was discussed according to due process:
* The legal process: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/r... [europa.eu] ; the text https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/... [europa.eu]
* August 24 - Bloomberg reporting about the proposal https://news.bloomberglaw.com/... [bloomberglaw.com] and
* November 25 - Those who disagreed presented a motion at the European Parliament (which was not approved) https://oeil.europarl.europa.e... [europa.eu]
* November 26 - Euronews reporting about the vote at the Parliament https://www.euronews.com/my-eu... [euronews.com] including quotes from those who were against (and were not a majority).
* December 30 - The Commission published the needed updates (what TFA is reporting about).
* January 19 (next Monday) - The new regulation will start applying.
2. It can be seen as the correction of an anomaly.
As it happens, the 27 out of 27 Member States have ratified international treaties that ban chemical weapons, biological weapons, cluster ammunitions, and personnel mines. Therefore the Commission concludes that these investments must be considered unethical.
To the contrary, only 3 Member States have formal objections to the manufacture of nuclear weapons (Malta, Cyprus, Austria). Therefore no reason to ban such investments EU wide.
Define Acronyms! (Score:2)
What the fuck is ESG? Speak English, not nitwit.
Define your acronyms on first use you fucking idiots. This is most important when using obscure or ambiguous acronyms.
Spell Out The Acronym(SOTA) and put the acronym in parenthesis as shown with SOTA.
Epic (Score:2)
Epic Store of Games?
Its about time! (Score:2)
Duke Nukem was ESG compliant!
So... (Score:2)
...if the nuke is used, your investment is gone?
Isn't this the plot to Fallout? (Score:2)
Seriously? How is this ESG compliant? (Score:1)
If a company's primary business is to sell products whose sole purpose is to kill people, then it doesn't belong on an ESG list. Technologies used in such products are moot.