[Eng] Germany’s Energy Policy Clash: The EU Taxonomy and France’s Influence
1. A Rift Over Energy Policy in Germany
A deep rift has continued to grow within Germany’s new coalition government over energy policy, exposing fault lines that go beyond technical debates. On May 23, 2025, Berlin-based Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa) reported that Economy Minister Katherina Reiche (reportedly under consideration for the position in a future cabinet reshuffle) has endorsed the EU Taxonomy’s classification of nuclear energy as “sustainable,” aligning with a pragmatic approach to climate goals. In contrast, Environment Minister Carsten Schneider of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) has fiercely opposed this stance, citing nuclear energy’s radioactive waste, accident risks, and high costs as reasons it cannot be deemed sustainable. Schneider remains steadfast in defending Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear power, a process completed in 2023.
This clash, while not unique to Germany, reflects more than a policy disagreement. It mirrors a broader struggle over the nation’s identity and its influence within the European Union. Reiche’s realism nods to the EU’s climate objectives and the pressing need for energy security, while Schneider’s anti-nuclear stance is rooted in Germany’s deep-seated environmental ethos and anti-nuclear tradition. This division could signal a troubling disintegration of Germany’s ability to project a unified national strategy.
2. What Is the EU Taxonomy?
At the heart of this debate lies the EU Taxonomy Regulation, a framework designed to classify economic activities as sustainable to guide investment toward the EU’s 2050 carbon-neutrality goal. The taxonomy serves as a roadmap for investors and businesses, identifying “green” activities while combating greenwashing—false claims of environmental responsibility.
To be classified as sustainable, an activity must meet stringent criteria:
- Contribution to Environmental Goals: It must significantly advance at least one of six objectives—climate change mitigation, adaptation, water protection, circular economy, pollution prevention, or biodiversity protection.
- No Significant Harm (DNSH): It must not cause major harm to other environmental goals.
- Technical Screening Criteria: It must meet specific thresholds, such as CO2 emissions or safety standards.
- Social Safeguards: It must comply with human rights and labor standards.
The taxonomy’s strength lies in its multilayered evaluation. Renewable energy sources like solar and wind are unequivocally sustainable, but nuclear energy and natural gas occupy a contested space, classified as sustainable only under strict conditions. Nuclear power, with its low CO2 emissions, contributes to climate change mitigation but faces criticism for radioactive waste and safety risks, which challenge the DNSH principle. The inclusion of nuclear and gas in the taxonomy’s 2022 supplementary act was a compromise between France’s nuclear advocacy and Germany’s then-reliance on gas.
3. The EU, France, and Germany: A Triad of Tensions
The EU Taxonomy debate is a battleground where the EU, France, and Germany’s competing priorities collide.
- The EU’s Balancing Act: The EU must reconcile the interests of its 27 member states while pursuing climate neutrality and energy security. Including nuclear and gas as sustainable was a pragmatic compromise, reflecting France’s push for nuclear power and the gas dependency of Eastern European nations. The taxonomy is a tool to drive investment and advance the EU’s Green Deal, but it cannot fully resolve member states’ conflicts.
- France’s Nuclear Ambition: France, which derives roughly 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, views it as a national cornerstone for energy independence and security. As a nuclear-armed state, France sees civilian nuclear energy as vital to maintaining technological expertise, avoiding fossil fuel reliance, and bolstering its economy through investments in its nuclear industry. France’s successful lobbying to classify nuclear as sustainable in the EU Taxonomy underscores its ambition to shape EU climate policy. The joint German-French paper cited by dpa, advocating equal treatment for all low-emission energy, reflects France’s strategy to align Germany’s conservative faction, led by Reiche, with its nuclear agenda.
- Germany’s Divided Stance: Germany, having phased out nuclear power by 2023 following the 2011 Fukushima disaster, has positioned itself as a renewable energy leader. Schneider’s opposition to nuclear reflects Germany’s anti-nuclear culture and environmental values, while Reiche’s openness aligns with the EU’s pragmatic approach and the need for energy security. The 2022 Russia-Ukraine war exposed Germany’s costly reliance on Russian gas, forcing a reevaluation of energy policy. Yet, internal divisions hinder a coherent strategy, leaving Germany caught between its green ideals and practical needs.
This triad encapsulates a broader struggle for EU leadership. France seeks dominance through nuclear power, while Germany aims to maintain influence via renewables, but its internal discord undermines its position.
4. The Roots and Future of the Divide
The roots of this conflict lie in Germany’s identity, history, and geopolitical shifts.
- Germany’s Anti-Nuclear Ethos: Germany’s anti-nuclear movement, born in the 1970s and galvanized by the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, is deeply tied to a cultural reverence for nature and sustainability. Schneider’s rejection of nuclear as unsustainable echoes this ethos, championed by the Green Party and civil society, which view renewables as Germany’s future. This vision unites the nation but clashes with the realities of energy security.
- The Russian Gas Fiasco: Before 2022, Germany relied heavily on Russian gas via the Nord Stream pipeline to bridge the gap left by its nuclear phase-out. The Russia-Ukraine war, which saw the pipeline’s sabotage (amid speculative claims of various parties’ involvement), triggered an energy crisis. By 2025, Germany has significantly reduced its reliance on Russian gas, but renewables alone cannot meet demand. Reiche’s nuclear reconsideration is a pragmatic response to this vulnerability.
- France’s Challenge and EU Leadership: France’s push for nuclear power in the EU Taxonomy aims to steer climate policy in its favor, enhancing its economic and geopolitical clout. Germany’s conservatives, like Reiche, see alignment with France and the EU as necessary for energy security, but Schneider and the SPD fear France’s nuclear model threatens Germany’s renewable leadership. The taxonomy thus serves as a proxy for a France-Germany power struggle.
- Germany’s Risk of Declining Influence: The government’s internal rift and lack of a unified energy strategy reflect deeper fractures. The failure of Russian gas reliance, economic strain from high energy costs, and regional divides—such as the rise of populism in eastern Germany—erode national cohesion. If France’s nuclear agenda dominates the EU, Germany’s influence could wane, potentially diminishing its role to that of less influential EU members.
Looking Ahead: In the short term, Germany will likely seek a compromise. Reiche’s pragmatism may lead to limited nuclear acceptance, such as investment in research or small modular reactors, aligning with the EU and France. Schneider’s anti-nuclear stance resonates with voters, but the limits of renewables—weather dependency and infrastructure gaps—could erode support if energy shortages persist. Long-term, Germany’s failure to forge a cohesive energy strategy risks ceding EU leadership to France and weakening its economic and geopolitical standing. While Germany’s economic might and federal structure prevent a literal collapse, the energy policy divide is a litmus test for its ability to redefine its national identity and role in the EU. The outlook remains uncertain, with Germany at a crossroads between its green ideals and the hard realities of a changing world.
| 固定リンク