Save The Climate : solutions for the future, action now

What we want :

unrestricted consumption of fossil fuels is inducing, via GHG emissions, a global climate change whose foreseeable consequences are daunting. Save The Climate (SLC) seeks to bring a neutral, scientific, Cartesian contribution to the debate. SLC considers that a powerful popular movement is urgently needed that, far from ideological stands, would express the real facts and the consequences that they imply.

  • Health Costs of the Different Energy Sources

    By Roland Masse


    At a time when there is growing awareness of the need to control and reduce the impact of human activities on the environment, the production and use of energy are coming under close scrutiny. The impact of the various energy sources on public health is an essential aspect that is addressed in the paper titled “Health Costs of Energy” by Roland Masse.



  • Germany Has Completed Its Nuclear Power Phase Out

    For some, this is a victory, but it is not one for the climate



    It is all done; after a long journey that began in the early 2000s and was accelerated following the Fukushima accident, Germany has just shut down its last nuclear reactors[1]. It has thus achieved its ambition to move away from nuclear power. For some, this is welcome, for others much less so.

    The real issue is the consequences. Let's examine the status of Germany’s electricity production: we will ignore the cost issues, about which there is much to be said, and the grid stability issue, about which there is also much to be said. We will focus here on the climate and the CO2 emissions.

  • The Updated Save the Climate Manifesto

    Link to the updated Save The Climate Manifesto      


    The founders of Save the Climate had, from the very beginning in 2005, drawn up a manifesto presenting the vision they wished to share with all members of the organization. In order to take into account the evolutions observed since that date, an updated version has been drafted with the participation of the Scientific Council and some members of the French Academy of Sciences and of the French Academy of Technologies. The updated manifesto was ratified at the organization’s General Assembly held on January 21, 2023.

    * * * * * * * * * * *

  • Carbon Neutrality - What Are We Talking About?



    The IPCC has determined that carbon neutrality will have to be reached in the second half of the 21st century if the climate objectives of the Paris Agreement are to be met. A variety of countries, cities, companies... have announced that they are going to achieve carbon neutrality, some of them well before the critical date. But are their "carbon neutrality" and that of the IPCC the same thing? Nothing is less certain.

    For many, carbon neutrality means that they will not emit more carbon than what nature will remove. The IPCC's definition is quite different: carbon neutrality means that humanity will remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as it emits.

    Regardless of where it is injected into the atmosphere, CO2 mixes quickly with the atmosphere as a whole and affects the entire surface of the planet. Carbon neutrality as defined by the IPCC is thus a global property.

  • Air pollution and climate
    The unexpected testimony of methane



    For years, it has been known that air pollution can affect the climate. The slow rate at which global warming started in the second half of the 20th century has been attributed to the shielding role played by aerosols emitted by industry: a fraction of the solar radiation was reflected back to space. The shielding effect is one way to modulate warming. Another is to modulate the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.

    The atmospheric concentration of methane increased unusually sharply in 2020. This is all the more surprising that 2020 was marked by reduced human activity on Earth due to the lockdown measures put in place to limit the spread of covid-19.

  • Nuclear Power is a Very Good Solution for the Climate

    Should France Do Without It, Considering it an Energy of the Past?



    The peremptory assertion that nuclear power is an "energy of the past" is at best an ill-informed and at worst a malicious interpretation of the history of nuclear power worldwide, and particularly in France.

  • Energy & Climate - France and Europe have made many mistakes

    These must be corrected as soon as possible


     The crises we are experiencing (climate crisis, geopolitical crisis, economic crisis,...) remind those who had forgotten them the stakes of the energy field. The fundamental role of energy in our society is reasserted:

    • Energy is essential to the functioning of our society: the availability of the energy we need at all times is not a given.
    • Energy is a fundamental issue of national sovereignty: dependence on external supplies can generate certain forms of submission.
    • Fossil fuels are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and consequently of climate change: we will have to do without them. The climate crisis is such that the effective reduction of emissions on a global scale must be an absolute priority.
    • The economic impacts of energy are fundamental: the sustainability of household spending and the competitivity of our economy are at stake.


    The European alliance weCARE, of which “Save the Climate” is a member, has, on September 5, 2022, sent this letter to representatives
    of the 27 Member States, urging them to take strong and urgent measures during the 9 September Energy Council Meeting.




  • Summer of 2022: the standard for 2050?


    The summer of 2022 saw extreme weather in many parts of the world: for Europe, it was the hottest summer on record, combined with catastrophic drought; in France, high temperatures caused the premature death of more than 10,000 persons, according to INSEE[1]; heat and drought combined to breed devastating forest wildfires; destructive thunderstorms and violent Mediterranean events hit several “départements”. Forest wildfires affected many countries in Europe and elsewhere, with California once again heavily stricken by these fires. Catastrophic drought also occurred elsewhere, such as in China. In Pakistan, heavy rains and associated flooding killed over 1,000 persons.

    Such a violent situation on a global scale would have been extremely unlikely without global warming. Indeed, global warming increases the probability, and therefore the occurrence, of such situations. And if global warming increases, summers like the one we just experienced could become the norm in a few decades.

    [1]       Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques – National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies which collects, analyses and disseminates information on the French economy and society.

  • The European Energy Policy: an Absolute Failure for the Climate

    Faced with the massive reduction of Russian gas deliveries, Europe finds itself in a situation of energy insecurity as of now: gas storage facilities must be filled at all costs before November 1. This is a legal obligation, whose purpose is to ensure that winter peak demand can be coped with. In France, these storage facilities represent a little over a fourth of the annual consumption so that even if they are filled, imports will have to continue at a significant rate during next winter and beyond.

    The reaction of several European countries has just been released: they are turning to... coal, and are about to reopen electricity production capacities using this fuel, which is by far the biggest CO2 emitter and the most polluting of all. Such is the case in Germany, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands and soon in other countries; Italy too is in a very precarious situation and will have to increase its electricity production from coal and fuel oil. As for France, the likelihood is that its last two coal-fired power plants are not about to shutdown.

  • Nuclear Power is a Very Good Solution for the Climate

    Should France Do Without It Because of the Waste Issue?

    “What is to be done with the most dangerous nuclear waste, given they will remain dangerous over several thousands of years? Despite sixty years of nuclear energy operation, there is still no lasting and safe solution for nuclear waste management.” These are the recurring statements of nuclear power opponents.

    How do things stand in fact?

    Any human activity generates waste, whether tied to household, daily, economic, industrial, commercial, etc. activities.

  • Nuclear Power is a Very Good Solution for the Climate

    Should France Do Without It for Fear of an Accident?

     Nuclear accidents often appear to the public as equally probable in all reactors, whatever the model, the host country or the operator. Only the terms "nuclear accident" seem to be retained, with no other consideration, as a sort of fatality. However, fortunately this vision does not correspond to reality: the nuclear reactor accidents that have occurred worldwide to date are deeply related to human behavior, at all stages whether it be their design, their construction, their operation, their monitoring by the safety authorities, or the global governance of the industry in the host country.

    Indeed, the root causes of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 in the United Sates are human errors. Those of the 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine and of the 2011 Fukushima accident in Japan are irresponsible major human failings at different stages and different responsibility levels in violation of the basic nuclear safety rules.  In Fukushima, the tsunami was only the trigger, not the root cause.

  • Massive methane leaks that must be prevented

    Crédit photo: Flickr Creative Commons – Ken Doerr

    The climate warming that we are experiencing is due to the accumulation in the atmosphere of gases that hinder the escape to space of the heat we receive from the sun. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main contributor to the additional greenhouse effect caused by man’s action, followed by methane.  Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Although its concentration per unit volume in the atmosphere is over 200 times less than that of CO2, its contribution to the global warming observed since the beginning of the industrial age is 2/3 that of CO2. Methane is particularly noxious for the climate in the short term: its residence time in the atmosphere before it is oxidized into CO2 is about 12 years. Its global warming potential is ≈30 times that of the same mass of CO2 when considering the impact over a period of 100 years; but, in the shorter term, if we consider a period of 20 years, this warming potential of methane is no longer 30 times but 90 times that of CO2. Given the climate urgency, it is very important to considerably reduce the emissions of various greenhouse gases without delay, especially those that have a strong short-term effect, such as methane.

  • “Futurs énergétiques 2050” (Energy futures for 2050)

    A reference study by RTE[1]with constrained projections

    Crédit photo: L'Express-AFP-Boris Horvat

    The above-mentioned RTE study, published on October 25, 2021, has been rightfully praised for its high-quality analysis. Unfortunately, it disregarded certain hypotheses.

    Among its accomplishments, an in-depth consultation of civil society (industrialists, institutions, various organizations, experts, etc.) was welcomed. This allowed for an analytical view and brought out numerous proposals concerning the hypotheses to be retained and discussed for this highly important study.


    [1]     RTE: Réseau de Transport de l’Électricité, France’s transmission system operator.

  • Which Energies for the Near and Medium Term?

     The energy issue will be predominant during this century for all of humanity. Indeed, humanity will have to face an unprecedented revolution which will differ greatly from those of the past. A short historical view sheds some light on the subject: after living for millennia with very little, solely renewable, energy, humanity has gone through several successive energy revolutions for a little over two centuries with the use of coal, and then of oil, and then of gas, all fossil fuels, and finally of electricity which can be produced from these fossil fuels and other primary energy sources, whether renewable or nuclear. The cumulative use of these sources has enabled a very high energy demand in developed countries.

  • Anything but numbers is open for discussion
    Why the European "all market" solution for electricity has gone crazy


    The French have been worrying for several weeks about the soaring prices of natural gas and electricity. They are right. These hikes have a common cause: the sharp increase of gas prices on the world market, which impacts not only gas consumers, but also electricity consumers.

    The price of gas increased from less than 15 €/MWh in September 2020 to almost 60 €/MWh during September 2021 and has continued to increase between the end of September and the beginning of October to reach 108 €/MWh in Rotterdam on October 6th!

  • The European Commission penalizes nuclear energy at the expense of the fight against global warming

    France must take action so that the development of nuclear energy is fully supported at both the European and the national levels.

     Last September 7th, the European Commissioner for Budget and Administration, Johannes Hahn, stated in a press release that the European Union would launch in October the issuance of green bonds, with up to 250 billion Euros by 2026. As part of the European recovery plan, these bonds are intended to finance "sustainable" investment and infrastructure supporting the energy transition and contributing to the objectives of the fight against climate change. Johannes Hahn said that these bonds will be able to finance gas power stations “under certain conditions to provide a solution of transition in the production of energy” and that these bonds “will in no way be able to finance investments in nuclear energy”.

  • It Happens Only to Others

    Credit: Rhein-ERFT-Kreis-AFP

    It is well known, and the IPCC has said so, the countries that will suffer the most from global warming are the most poverty-stricken countries. Yet, precisely because they are poor, they are the ones that emit the least CO2. This is all very unpleasant for them, but we make ourselves feel better by promising to help them via technical international mechanisms that will be discussed at length during the next COPs. Meanwhile, we think that in our rich countries, global warming cannot be so serious, at least for the time being.

    However, nature has no feelings. Climate change is, indeed, impacting poor countries severely, with for example, increasing aridity in African countries such that agriculture is unable to feed the populations. But rich countries can also be hit hard. Recent disasters are a demonstration of this: the wildfires in Australia, Siberia and Sweden, to name only the most gigantic, the deadly heat hitting not only the West of the United States but also Canada, the floods with their dramatic consequences in Germany, Belgium, China, India...

  • Climate: a weak France sacrificing its interests within a weak Europe

     - What should we make of recent events, with the Leaders' Summit on Climate Change hosted by Joe Biden and with the European Union's announcement of its 2030 objectives?

    - The first obvious fact is that diplomatic leadership on climate change is still exercised by the Sino-American axis and that Europe is trailing behind.

    - The second obvious fact is that the European leadership is exercised by Germany in alliance with the green-political movement.

    - The European Commission (which, behind its soothing discourse on the climate, is, in fact, committed to special interests) and the Parliament (infiltrated by ecologist-political doctrines) are joining forces on a path that violates the interests of the climate and, incidentally, those of France.

  • Is a "100% Renewables" Power System Really Feasible?

     Credit: Reuters

    On Wednesday January 27, 2021 RTE (Electricity Transmission System Operator for France) officially presented at a press conference a study done jointly with the IEA (International Energy Agency) entitled: "Conditions and requirements for the technical feasibility of a power system with a high share of renewables in France towards 2050."

  • 46 associations call on Ursula Von der Leyen to include nuclear power in the European taxonomy


    27 associations from the European Union and 19 from outside the Union sent a letter to the President of the European Commission on March 26 to demand that nuclear power be included in the European taxonomy currently being established for climate protection. Save the Climate ( Sauvons le climat) is one of the European signatories.

    The "weCARE" collective of which Save the Climate is a founding member wrote a letter to the President of the European Commission in which it stresses nuclear power's geopolitical dimension for Europe.



       Letter : 46 associations call on Ursula Von der Leyen to include nuclear power in the European taxonomy

       WeCare's letter to the European Commission Presidency : Nuclear Energy: a geostrategic challenge for the European Union




  • France's and Europe's Electricity Supply Security is at Risk (summary)



    Electricity produced with no CO2 emissions is increasingly emerging as the most efficient and economical energy vector able to massively decarbonize industry, housing, transport etc... Choosing wind power and photovoltaics almost exclusively to produce this decarbonized electricity, however, threatens the electricity supply security of European countries in the coming years and decades.

  • Natural Gas Treated as "Clean Energy" by the European Union, LREM[1] and the Former President of WWF France



    Supported by the German presidency of Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, the European Parliament has just voted to establish a “Just Transition Fund (*)" endowed with 10 billion euros. This fund will provide funding for programs using natural gas, as if this source of energy were "clean" considering global warming.

  • Nuclear Power reduced to 50 %:  Less Security, More CO2 (Presentation)



    A Short Presentation

    The planned decommissioning of 14 reactors by 2035 so as to reduce to 50 % the share of nuclear power has been presented as a necessary diversification, in order to "not put all the eggs in the same basket" and to better secure the country's supply. In truth, the result will be the exact opposite. Indeed, perfectly "dispatchable" production units, i.e. units capable of producing according to demand, will be replaced by wind turbines and photovoltaic panels whose production is contingent on the amount of wind or sun and is in no way related to the demand... Photovoltaic production is nonexistent at night and wind is statistically nonexistent 36 days per year on average; thus, there will be some ten long winter nights, a time of high demand, when the wind + photovoltaic fleet production will be close to zero, regardless of the installed capacity. Result: the certain effect of decommissioning 14 reactors will be to deprive the country of some 10 GW capacity several times each winter! A considerable loss, 6 times larger than the supply security margin on the grid!

  • Fessenheim: the Second Step in a Disastrous Drift




    Next June 30, the second reactor at the Fessenheim nuclear power plant will be shut down for good. This means an annual continuous production capacity of 6 TWh of decarbonized electricity will be scrapped although it could have continued to generate safe power for many years.

  • Nuclear Excluded from EU Sustainable Finance? An Aberration!


    On April 15, 2020 the European Council adopted the "green taxonomy" sustainable finance regulation, the result of a political agreement reached last December with the European Parliament. This text includes only renewable energies; nuclear power is excluded in spite of its being carbon-free. In the perspective of "Save the Climate", the taxonomy as it has been adopted supports a mix of renewable & gas for electricity generation, an environmental and economic aberration.

  • Which Energy Sources to save the climate ?

     At the COP25 held in Madrid in December 2019, Sébastien Richet of GISOC (Global Initiative to Save Our Climate, created by members of Save the Climate) presented a poster in which the results of a scientific study on the element limitation factors till 2050 relative to various carbon-free energy sources are summarized. This study concludes that only nuclear power with reprocessing and Gen-IV reactors, with a complement of hydraulic power and bio-energy based on wood where applicable, can cope with the most demanding scenarios.




Save The Climate: 2023 15th Summer School PROGRAMME & INSCRIPTION

Les matériaux de l'énergie du futur
INSTN - Centre du CEA de Saclay (91400)
du mardi 10 octobre au jeudi 12 octobre  2023

Le programme des journées s’articulera autour des thèmes suivants :

  • Aspects géopolitiques,
  • La demande en matériaux,
  • Les capacités de production.


Voici le programme détaillé  à la date du 11 septembre  2023
et le bulletin d'incription

NEW: SLC booklet: Climate Warming: Good questions and true answers

A new SLC booklet: Climate Warming: Good questions & true answers

 Cover English Edition Climate Warming

Click on : Climate warming to access the summary and  the link to the order form

Galery videos SLC

Request for a speaker


SLC can put you in connection with the speaker of your needs. Do not hesitate to reserve!

Request for a speaker

Latest releases

Scenario NEGATEP

NEGATEP (NEGATOE in english) is a deep decarbonation scenario for France. 2017 update :

image Negatep2017

SLC Régions

SLC engages daily with the regions to advance mentalities.