The announcement of the downward revision of the French growth forecast for 2026 by the Ministry of Finance, reduced to 0.4% from 0.7% initially estimated, is not a surprise. The Bank of France had already reduced its to 0.6% in August. But the very negative comments that accompanied it are excessive and the European comparisons unwelcome. In an increasingly difficult international context, including a sharp rise in oil and natural gas prices and a summer marked by a real climate catastrophe, France will escape recession. Germany, after being plunged into it for two years, is barely out of it. But the country will be confronted with the consequences of the transformation of its industrial model, which is too dependent on the automotive sector, and of past choices in the energy sector.

Conversely, and this is good news, this sector is holding up well in France, as shown by the latest figures published for the month of July. The rate of independence of energy production reached a record level of 72%. Nuclear production approached 30 TWh, up slightly over one year despite the constraints linked to the cooling difficulties of several power plants, and it partly made it possible to cope with the sharp increase in domestic consumption (+5.6%). This benefited from the production of solar panels (+20%), which compensated for the shutdown of many wind turbines. When there are such heat waves, there is no more wind, which illustrates the intermittent nature of these sources and makes it essential to have capacity that can supply the grids in all circumstances.

At the same time, the electricity production system remained largely an exporter in July with a positive balance of 8.8 TWh. During the 1st half of the year, electricity trade provided a surplus of 53 TWh and brought in €3.2 billion, i.e. almost half of France's gas bill. The performance of the electricity sector also helped mitigate the inflationary consequences of the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. Inflation in France remained below the euro area average, unlike in Germany, where it reached 2.9% at the end of August. 

The rise in energy prices in Germany exceeded 10% year-on-year in August, accelerating compared to July (+8.5%). While fuels, as in other European countries, largely contributed to this development, electricity prices reflected the country's sensitivity to its dependence on its new suppliers. There was a strong decorrelation in wholesale electricity prices between the two sides of the Rhine, which benefited large consumer French companies.

 This situation is set to last. The first German mistake was almost fifteen years ago to favour Russian gas, to the point that former Social Democrat Chancellor Schroeder was entrusted with the presidency of one of the companies responsible for transporting it. The sanctions adopted after the invasion of Ukraine forced Berlin to completely change its sources of supply at a significant cost.

But the mistake that will have the most serious consequences in the long term was the decision to abandon nuclear electricity production. Chancellor Merkel used the Fukushima disaster as a pretext to close the German fleet of power plants. At the time, it was well known that the thousands of deaths were caused by the tsunami that flooded the Japanese coast and caused the shutdown of the plant's electrical system that provided cooling for the reactor. The resulting radioactive emissions did not therefore originate from an accident in the operation of the plant but were the result of a major natural disaster.

The decision was in fact purely political. The CDU first needed the Green votes, and this was, whatever the consequences, essential to form a government with a majority. Secondly, it was necessary to win seats in the Länder of the former East Germany. As renewable energies were intermittent, it was necessary to have coal-fired thermal power plants capable of being activated when there was not enough wind or sun, and the main coal mines are located in the eastern Länder, hence the Chancellor's choice.

This reasoning, which has enabled the CDU to remain in power for nearly fifteen years, shows first of all the profound incoherence of the attitude of the environmental movement. The latter supported a policy of substituting coal for nuclear power. Priority was thus given to an energy source that emits heavy greenhouse gases and particles, affecting air quality at the local level, with all its effects on health, notably causing respiratory diseases.

By giving in to pressure from its neighbour demanding the closure of the Fessenheim reactors on completely futile grounds, France has also made a mistake, but the proper functioning of its fleet of power plants has enabled it to reduce its CO2 emissions to a level almost equal to half of those of its neighbour and to have an energy production system that meets, particularly for electricity, the three requirements of such an essential good, namely compliance with environmental objectives, increased independence from foreign suppliers and, last but not least, the ability of the production system to meet the demand of economic agents at all times.

In all three areas, Germany has failed to achieve these goals. But, as the victory of the far-right AfD party in the state of Saxony-Anhalt shows, the CDU has also completely failed politically. The sharp increases in energy prices in Germany are the direct consequence of these bad choices. However, they have mainly affected the middle classes, who have turned away from the ruling party to give their votes to the AfD. Moreover, the reopening of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline and the end of sanctions against Moscow are part of its programme.

In the former East Germany, the Social Democrats have never achieved good results because those who remained loyal to the former communist regime, and there are still many, blame them for the fall of the Berlin Wall and the industrial collapse that followed, which in several Länder resulted in a standard of living that was much lower than that of the West, despite the considerable financial transfers made after reunification.

France must learn all the lessons from the economic and political difficulties that its neighbour across the Rhine is and will be facing for a long time. The supply of national energy that protects at least in part from international crises is an asset for the government parties. By mitigating the consequences of these crises on purchasing power, nuclear power is helping to restore, at least in part of the electorate, the confidence they had lost in their leaders. These voters will thus be able to begin to turn away from political parties whose proposals contain the seeds of economic and financial crises that are much more serious than anything France has experienced.

The comparison between France and Germany of the combined effects of the current international crises and the disasters resulting from climate change, both economically and politically, therefore shows the importance and advantages of choosing nuclear power.