Hello there, great to see you again. I'm James Panicki. Welcome back to

Mlex's weekly podcast covering the top regulatory stories of the week. In just over 10 minutes

time, we'll be blowing out a candle for the

10-year anniversary of the UK Bribury Act. But once the party is over and we've woken up to the

cold, hard light of day, we'll ask whether the law's not always impressive enforcement record

should be viewed with some concern. Martin Coyle will be joining us for that.

First up, though, nuclear power. We all know what it is. Many of us have an opinion as to whether

it should be considered environmentally friendly or not. So it's a very divisive issue and not

just for outside observers. Scientists also appear to be at odds over whether nuclear should be seen as a green source of energy. But does it matter how we choose to describe it? Well, yes, it does. In the European Union, environmentally friendly sources of energy are earmarked for green loans and green funds.

Non-renewable energy, however, is not.

The result is a scientific debate that now appears somewhat contaminated by political and national considerations.

And to walk us through all of this is our Brussels-based senior financial services correspondent

Jack Shikler, who joins me now. Jack, firstly, let's go through the terminology here. Green finance

taxonomy. What does that mean exactly? Well, it's a funny word, but it's a kind of centrepiece

of an initiative the EU has had for a while,

which is to get financial services to play its part in this huge task that Brussels are taking very seriously,

of adapting to and mitigating the impact of climate change and rising global temperatures.

So, you know, they say we need to phase out fossil fuels.

We may also need to change to a world in which there are natural disasters.

They're a bit more common than they are right now.

And someone's got to pay for all this.

And while governments are going to do a bit of that, they don't have enough money.

...