The European energy crisis of 2022 constituted not only an economic shock but also a political stress test.
Driven by post-pandemic supply constraints and the disruption following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, energy prices surged across the continent and inflation rose sharply, from approximately 2.6% in early 2021 to a peak of 10.6% in October 2022. Household energy bills soared, contributing to a severe cost‑of‑living squeeze that hit low‑to middle‑income households hardest.
This forced the EU to respond with tight monetary policy, while some countries introduced energy subsidies and others were pushed to double down on fossil‑fuel dependence to prevent prices from rising still further.
But the damage was done. Competitiveness was harmed, cost of living had soared, and discontent across Europe had grown. The political effects were clear and sharp. Radical and populist parties, fueled by economic instability, would gain serious ground in elections, notably in the European Parliament in 2024.
Yet all this can be tied to one underlying issue: Europe’s dependence on imported fossil fuels and the failures of a fragmented “green” energy transition. The most efficient, safe, and cheap energy source, nuclear energy, had been systematically deprioritized, phased out, or politically sidelined just as the continent’s energy security was becoming more fragile. Nowhere was this more visible than in Germany, where the nuclear phase-out coincided with rising energy costs and growing support for populist parties such as AfD.
Put simply: when energy is stable, economies are stable, and when economies are stable, so too are democracies.
Nuclear energy provides something Europe has lacked: stability. Unlike gas and oil, it is not exposed to sudden geopolitical shocks or supply disruptions. Its output is consistent, its costs predictable, and its supply largely domestic.
Stable energy means fewer economic shocks. Prices don’t spike overnight, households aren’t forced into sudden cutbacks, and governments don’t need to scramble with emergency subsidies.
This matters because democratic systems rely heavily on perceived fairness and predictability. When households experience sudden and repeated declines in living standards (especially from factors beyond their control), trust in institutions begins to erode. In such conditions, voters become more supportive of populist actors who gain support by promising disruption rather than stability, framing established institutions as ineffective or out of touch.
Beyond domestic economics, reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels limits Europe’s exposure to geopolitical pressure.
Relying on fossil fuels which Europe lacks control over does not just create economic risk; it constrains political decision-making, as was evident in the early stages of the war in Ukraine, when concerns over energy security complicated the pace and scope of European responses. A more self-sufficient energy base reduces these trade-offs, allowing democratic governments to act with greater consistency and less exposure to external pressure.
The implications are clear: Europe’s energy vulnerability in 2022 was not just an economic failure, but a political one.
Europe’s energy policy is not just about emissions or prices, it is about political stability. A system built on volatile energy will produce volatile economies, and volatile economies will produce political backlash.
Nuclear energy offers a way out of that cycle. Not as a silver bullet, but as a stabilising force, one that reduces shocks, strengthens resilience, and gives democratic systems the breathing room they need to function.
If Europe wants to remain stable, sovereign, and democratic in an increasingly chaotic world, nuclear energy is not optional. It is necessary.
Good reporting is cheaper than heavy-handed regulation. Support freedom and independent journalism by donating today.
This piece reflects the author’s views, not necessarily the entire magazine. We welcome a range of pro-liberty perspectives. Send us your pitch or draft.
