France’s adoption of nuclear and renewable energy provides a tangible counterfactual benchmark for the emissions reductions Germany might have realized with a comparable energy policy mix.
- background to France and their approach to nuclear energy in the 20th century
Following the Fukushima disaster, the French government firmly maintained its commitment to nuclear power, setting itself apart from neighbouring countries' shifting policies (K=1 Project, 2012). France’s starkly contrasting reaction evidences how a landscape shock of global magnitude does not have a uniform… Read more impact worldwide.
Comparing German and French sustainability efforts is complex due to the many variables and subjective opinions involved. France's energy sector emissions are considerably lower than Germany's, primarily due to its extensive use of nuclear power, which contributes to its greenhouse gas emissions being about 45 percent of Germany's as of 2021. While Germany has made a larger overall reduction in emissions since 1990, with a 41 percent decrease compared to France's 24 percent, the German per capita emissions are nearly double those of the French, underpinning the impact of France's nuclear energy reliance compared to Germany's significant use of coal and larger industrial base (Lafrance & Wehrmann, 2023).
Germany's climate and nuclear policy have drawn scrutiny for projecting an image of environmental leadership, which is significantly qualified by underlying complexities and contradictions. The construction of extensive gas pipelines such as Nord Stream 2 directly challenges the European Union's binding target for climate neutrality by 2050, as they risk establishing a prolonged reliance on fossil fuels that conflicts with the imperative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero (de Jong et al., 2020). Gazprom's Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which was contested by Poland and other EU member states, also raised concerns over European unity and the EU's credibility, especially given the potential it had to undermine the EU's sanctions against Russia (following Crimea in 2014) and the EU’s Energy Union project (Szymański, 2016). (EXPLAIN THE ENERGY UNION PROJECT). The withdrawal of Western companies from the project amplifies these concerns, as Poland calls for the European Commission to ensure full compliance with EU law and to protect the bloc's fundamental principles (Szymański, 2016).
Germany's position on EU energy policies reflects a further discrepancy. While publicly exerting influence in advocacy of other member states, including France, to shift away from nuclear power, Germany continues to import foreign nuclear-produced electricity. A report from the École de Guerre Économique (2023) reveals that the Heinrich Böll and Rosa Luxemburg Foundations, funded by the German government and purporting to be educational and research organisations, have actively shaped EU energy policy to favour Germany's renewable energy focus over nuclear power, notably targeting the French nuclear industry. Their strategies include lobbying, public campaigns, and building alliances with influential figures, effectively promoting Germany's energy interests, and attempting to dominate EU energy strategy by diminishing the nuclear sector. Following the decommissioning of its nuclear plants, Germany saw a 15.2% increase in energy imports and a 9.8% decrease in exports, with experts noting that the cost of nuclear electricity now imported from France surpasses that of their erstwhile domestic nuclear production. (Rupprecht, 2023). Germany's decommissioning of nuclear plants has led to economic losses, incurring high costs for foreign nuclear electricity and grappling with the expensive dismantling of its own facilities.
Germany’s commitments to the Energiewende and clean energy were tested after committing to shutting down all nuclear plants, criticising the French nuclear approach, and subsequently investing heavily in Nord Stream 2. When crisis arose following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, its response to the fallout from unsustainable Russian gas deals was to import nuclear energy from France and reignite coal plants. Despite coal being “the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel” (IEA, 2023), Germany remained stubborn and closed the remainder of its nuclear plants, diverging from their supposed commitments to reducing emissions. Jarvis et al., (2022) find that Germany's substitution of nuclear power with coal and imported electricity following the Fukushima incident has incurred social costs of €3-8 billion annually, mainly due to increased fatalities from air pollution. The phase-out would only be economically justified with a substantial overestimation of nuclear accident risks.
Furthermore, Brook et al. (2014) explicitly outline the success of the French nuclear energy model to transition away from fossil fuels and the general safety of nuclear energy. By converting the bulk of its electricity generation to nuclear power, France achieved a profound reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, along with cuts in other greenhouse gases like methane. This shift not only illustrates the potential for nuclear energy to sustain modern industrial societies but also showcases the environmental benefits of moving away from combustion-based energy sources.
