Is this really true though? UK is building new reactors, France has many. Wind and solar are both massive successes across the continent. The North Sea still has oil and significant new LNG storage capacity has recently been built.
Wind/Solar/etc cannot produce fertilizer - arguably the most important use of fossil fuels.
And the EU's land does not produce enough food to support its population without fossil fuel derived fertilizers (requires lots of nat gas). Hence why the EU still imports $billions of Russian fertilizer despite publicly talking tough about Russia.
The EU leaves fossil fuel extraction to other countries and then imports the result while loudly shouting about their own "morality" and sustainability. It's child-like and pure silly-ness. Until the EU starts fracking they will never have independence over anything.
> Wind/Solar/etc cannot produce fertilizer - arguably the most important use of fossil fuels.
You can create ammonia (and thereby nitrogen-based fertilizers which you are probably referring to) from electricity, water and air alone. However, doing it with gas or oil is often cheaper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44160-023-00362-y
I think your concern on fertiliser imports is overblown. I find the argument that the EU shouldn't champion & invest in renewables while it also continues to use and import fossil fuels a false dichotomy. The same goes for fracking. I also don't accept the argument that pristine independence in one sector (energy) is a base requirement for overall sovereign independence. For sure, some home grown control over energy is a requirement but we live in an interconnected world and whatever the EU may lack in one area it has more than enough ways and means in other areas to assert its power and achieve its policy goals. It's also quite capable of and not afraid to invest on a large scale when/where it's needed.
