What do you do when you realise you are heading in the wrong direction? Hit the brakes, right? In Europe, this is not the case. Instead, European leaders' answer is to accelerate further, opting for an energy transition that needs to be faster, more ambitious, and more radical. While in the meantime, the problems are piling up. A summary of the key facts, point by point, makes you almost desperately wonder: why isn't anyone hitting the brakes?

By Evert Doornhof
The signals in Europe are by now crystal clear. Energy prices are structurally higher than in the United States; the electricity grid is grinding to a halt; industry is leaving Europe; and dependence on imports is growing. These are not isolated incidents. This is the system. And yet, one message is echoing from Brussels and The Hague: accelerate the process further.

Figure: European energy prices are structurally much higher than in the US, a direct consequence of policy choices. Source: European Commission (Draghi Report, 2024), based on Eurostat, EIA and CEIC data (adaptation).

This is not bad luck, but policy
In recent years, Europe has deliberately chosen to:
• close nuclear power plants
• phase out domestic gas production
• replace reliable energy sources with weather-dependent alternatives

That is not a technical development, but a political choice. And that choice is based on the assumption that there is a climate crisis requiring rapid and drastic measures. But that assumption is by no means fixed — and is rarely seriously questioned. Our World Climate Declaration (WCD) — now signed by 2,062 experts — states explicitly that there is no climate crisis that justifies this policy. The basis for the haste in the energy transition then collapses.

France vs Germany: the difference between theory and practice
Within Europe, the evidence is simply on the table. France opted for nuclear energy, with the following consequences: approximately 70% of electricity comes from nuclear power, there is a stable, predictable system, and there are low CO2 emissions per kWh.

Germany, on the other hand, chose the Energiewende, in which nuclear power plants have been closed, hundreds of billions have been invested in wind and solar, energy prices are higher than in France, and, ironically, CO2 emissions are higher than in France.

Even within the logic of climate policy, the conclusion is uncomfortable: Germany is performing worse, at much higher costs. That is not a subtle difference. That is a fundamental failure of policy.

Figure: CO₂ intensity of electricity in France and Germany (2017). France produces structurally cleaner and more stable electricity than Germany—source: Environmental Progress, based on Fraunhofer ISE and RTE

Recent figures confirm that this difference still exists: France is around 20–30 g CO₂/kWh, while Germany is around 300 g CO₂/kWh (source: RTE France, Ember, Fraunhofer ISE).

Figure: Electricity prices reflect energy policy: German households pay approximately twice as much as French households. Source: Eurostat (2024).

The difference between France and Germany shows that energy policy matters. France opted for nuclear energy and possesses a stable system with low emissions and relatively moderate prices. Germany closed its nuclear power plants and invested hundreds of billions in wind and solar, and now faces higher prices, greater dependence on fossil fuels, and even higher CO2 emissions per kWh. Two countries, two choices, two outcomes.

What people prefer not to mention
The downsides of the energy transition remain remarkably underexposed in Europe. Examples include:
• weeks-long periods without sun and wind
• partly as a result, fossil fuel backup remains necessary
• A dual infrastructure is therefore required
• There is enormous pressure on the electricity grid
• We remain dependent on raw materials and mining
• the degradation of the landscape and nature

These are not marginal issues. This is how the system works. But anyone who points this out is quickly labelled as being “on the wrong side of the debate”.

The fallacy
Europe is trying to replace a stable energy system with an unstable one. And it thinks it can solve this by rolling it out faster. That is not a strategy. That is stubbornness. As our director Marcel Crok states, “sustainable” is not automatically a solution.

The alternative
In 2019, Clintel presented the World Climate Declaration to European leaders. The message was clear:
• There is no climate crisis
• and therefore no reason for panic policies
• focus on reliable and affordable energy

If that line had been followed, Europe would probably have a more stable energy system today, lower energy prices, fewer power grid problems, and, last but not least, a stronger industry.

In addition, nuclear energy could have served as the backbone, while domestic gas could have served as a strategic buffer. Renewable sources would have served as a supplement rather than a foundation.

The bill is becoming evident
The gap with the United States is widening. After all, the US benefits from cheap energy, a strong industry and therefore higher economic growth. At the same time, Europe struggles with expensive energy, which is losing industry and lags economically.

This is reflected in the development of the gross domestic product in the US versus the EU. The energy price is a major factor in this. This is no coincidence. This is policy. And policy has consequences.

Figure: Cheap energy and policy make the difference — the US continues to grow, Europe lags. Source: IMF WEO (adaptation).

Europe’s crisis is not that the energy transition isn’t happening fast enough. Its crisis is that the entire direction is detached from physical and economic reality. Yet Brussels and the capitals keep slamming the pedal to the floor, accelerating full speed toward the wall.

Evert Doornhof has long been active in the financial world in commercial and management roles. After the COVID pandemic, he changed course when he observed how quickly personal freedoms can be restricted. He is now committed to shedding light on crises that appear to be manufactured or exaggerated. Among other things, he is active with the Clintel Foundation, where he manages social media and has written several articles. This is his first contribution to The Liberum.