The heat wave that is hitting Europe and France in particular is a manifestation of the climate change that is affecting the planet. It is becoming more and more difficult, even if other violent events have occurred in the past, such as in France during the summer of 2003, to contest the role of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But the reactions to the current crisis show the great confusion that exists between what needs to be done to curb this accumulation and the measures to be taken to mitigate its consequences in a country.

The accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere has a double characteristic: it is historical and global. In the first case, the responsibility lies with those who have caused the emissions for decades, and it is not because they contribute less to the overall volume today that they should be exonerated from their responsibilities. However, this analysis has lost its relevance over the years because the growth in the volume of emissions from emerging countries, and China in particular, has made them major contributors to disruption in the same way as the major industrial powers.

But the phenomenon is global. The results of the efforts of a country that emits few greenhouse gases compared to the total volume accumulated in the past and generated each year are marginal. Above all, they have no impact on his own climate situation since, as we have seen, if others continue to emit more and more, his situation will continue to worsen and he will not benefit from it. There is therefore no direct link between the effort made by France to reduce its emissions and the climatic events affecting the country, such as the current heat wave.

The Energy Institute, which took over from BP, publishes annual statistics by country on energy production and consumption by energy source, and their CO2 emissions. In 2024, the last year on record, China is by far the largest emitter and has seen its emissions grow by 20% in ten years. The United States, which emits half as much, has seen its level fall by 10% over the same period, largely due to the shift from coal to natural gas in electricity production. The country will soon be overtaken by India, which has seen a 39% increase in its emissions in ten years. They reached 3200 million tons in 2024 compared to 5100 million in the United States.

And Europe, which has made the fight against global warming one of its main priorities, where does it stand? The reduction in emissions continues with a 20% reduction over ten years. Its volume is now significantly lower than that of India and equal to half of US emissions. Germany, the leading emitter, has reduced its own by 24% but they are still twice as large as those of France, which is, in relation to the number of inhabitants, the best pupil in the Union.

But this evolution, based on electrification, has had weaknesses. Electricity production, in order to meet the objectives, must meet three conditions. Depend as little as possible on fossil fuels. When necessary, ensure that their supply is not subject to geopolitical risk. Finally, to offer total security, the intermittency of renewable energies being compensated by the availability of other modes of production. The German example has shown that the use of Russian gas is a source of vulnerability and that relying excessively on intermittent sources of production can destabilise the networks and no longer be able to meet demand.

However, the policy imposed by the Commission with the support of Germany has focused on renewable energies and has long been marked by its hostility to nuclear energy, a hostility that has just eased with, at last, the possibility for this form of electricity production to benefit from privileged financing. This policy, which is costly for European public finances, has also contributed to increasing imports, since most of the solar panels are produced in China and a large part of the components of wind turbines are also produced outside the Union. In total, the contribution to reducing emissions has been marginal (500 million tonnes in ten years), equivalent to the increase in China's emissions in a single year.

We are therefore faced with the following paradox: Europe is convinced that we are heading towards global warming. It devotes significant resources to negligible results on the only scale that counts, that of the planet, but does not invest in protecting its population against the consequences of a movement that is considered inevitable and whose often dramatic consequences on the population we are currently experiencing with a record heat wave. The political reactions in France show how inadequate this European policy has been, but do not go so far as to acknowledge the contradiction that exists between the display of the inevitability of global warming and the absence of any policy intended to protect the population against this warming.

It is therefore to be hoped that this heatwave will make the leaders of the European institutions and each government aware of the urgency of the situation and the imperative need to take measures to mitigate the consequences of climate change on the population and more generally on economic activity. As the financial context is tense, even in Germany where considerable efforts will have to be made in the areas of defence and infrastructure, this new adaptation policy will require savings in other areas.

From the moment we move from an energy transition to a climate transition, in a country like France, the solution is to stop investments and all the subsidies that accompany them, in favor of renewable energies while protecting the nuclear program, and redeploy these resources towards better insulation and air conditioning of buildings, with hospitals as a priority.  schools and EPADS.

The question of electric vehicles also deserves to be raised. Wouldn't the electricity they consume be better used to cool the reception, work and residence spaces? The objectives set by the European Union with the end of the production of cars with combustion engines in 2035 are not only disproportionate to the challenges of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They constitute a major threat to European industry, which does not need them with the very fierce and long-term competition that the Chinese industry exerts on our manufacturers. Here too, substantial savings could be made.

Finally, the European Union, rather than imposing excessively ambitious objectives on the Member States, should address the real culprits today of global warming and indicate that the inadequacy of the efforts they are undertaking, if not quickly corrected, would seriously affect their relations with the Union. The United States does not have a monopoly on threats on the international scene. On such serious issues, firmness must be imposed. We cannot be constantly alarmed about the risks facing the planet without addressing those who bear the responsibility.

The 2026 heatwave must therefore have a double consequence. Reorient national policies in Europe towards the protection of populations by making the necessary investments and financing urgent expenditure and raise the tone on the international scene vis-à-vis those responsible for this situation.