I wasn't expecting such a law to be discussed at this time. Many people arround the world (including the european union) are supporting Ukraine using cryptocurrencies and many exchanges as well. Knowig that the ashrate in all european countries isn't that significant, i wonder for whom serves this kind of Ban .
Ukraine has opened the door for cryptocurrency donations to support the military : https://www.theblockcrypto.com/linked/137552/ukraine-turns-crypto-donations-into-5550-bulletproof-vests-500-helmets-and-more
Official link to donate to Ukraine using cryptocurrencies : https://donate.thedigital.gov.ua/

They conjure up a definition depending on what they're talking about in terms of environmental sustainability. I have yet to see any consistency with these sort of people. Europe generally is pro-green energy but the unfair targeting of Bitcoin seems deliberate. Nuclear energy would solve a lot of the energy needs for most developed countries yet that isn't seen as any solution to energy demands.

The war against cryptocurrency activities can be explained from different aspects like protecting the environment. In this field, they can apply sanctions at any time over countries outside the european union, just like they did with nuclear activities against Iran and few other countries.
I am afraid that they just ignore the ban for mining activities only because it's not a priority in a period of war. So expect that the law can be return to parliament negotiation/voting once the war ends ; We must not forget that it is not in the interest of governments to adopt cryptocurrencies, and that their need for them may be circumstantial and will end with no need for them. Personally, I do not trust the recent decisions because they are improvisational to the reality of the ongoing war.

I'm glad they were reasonable about it. After all, the debate about the environmental impact has been around for a while, and there seems to be a lot of evidence that crypto mining's impact on climate change is overrated, and that it's not a viable argument against cryptocurrencies because there are other industries with very significant impact as well, and because the problem is with sources of electricity, not with the usage of electricity itself. Overall, voting is a good thing about democracy: radical changes usually don't get accepted by the majority of decision-makers, and in countries with strong democracies it's hard to choose against the will of the people.

The upliftment of ban against it is positive approach by the EU and all those who supported the POW have some idea that it's not that much worse for environment as it's portrayed.All those people who have these love for nature forget how easily they have exploits the natural resources for making some immaterial things but btc consuming electricity make them concern about these issues.So these things were past matters and now we might also shift to renewable energy resources for mining which will be even better.

So technically they are only concerned with the environment and how it affects the current way it is being generated? Like how much power they are using and if they are using renewable sources of energy for their generation of BTC?

Having these kind of people is healthy because we see the other part or another view of how bitcoin affects the whole world. I hope that upgrades in makes it better in terms of energy consumption and hazardous waste of energy.

Maybe the case is not that fully backed with facts. Like how much generation are in use of energy. No one would really oppose it if It isn't good ultimately. There is just room for improvement.

Apparently, there was still an open door for the report’s commission & council to challenge Berger’s mandate and stand, Fortunately, it did not happen, so therefore it remains as it was:

(GT)
https://twitter.com/DrStefanBerger/status/1507305090088067078

https://twitter.com/DrStefanBerger/status/1507305092378157065

https://twitter.com/DrStefanBerger/status/1507305094462726163

The above shows that there are still further steps in the process, although the horizon seems now to be much clearer. The article below points to the expectation of reducing PoW activity to the consideration of being an "environmentally (un)sustainable economic [activity]", according to the EU Taxonomy. This would push any consideration of prohibition away, and rather more vouch for some implications for those, for example, investing in mining PoW in the EU (i.e. demanding that mining be subject to using ustainable sources of energy.)

More episodes are therefore scheduled for this the near future, although the plot seems to be heading clearly in a favourable direction for this quasi soap opera …

See also: https://cryptoslate.com/finally-a-proof-of-work-ban-is-off-the-table-in-europe/