I wonder to what extent you can get subsidies from both acts. I assume it shouldn't be a problem.
The choice was made decades ago on the alter of faux environmentalism to export the environmental cost of energy production to another nation so the EU could claim moral superiority in the climate change battle. Completely decimating domestic energy sources.
Well that is simply false.
Having morals and accepting hardship for standing up for them is not stupid. It's a principled stance most Europeans agree with. Governments need to step in and help whenever needed (with price caps for consumers, advantageous loans to businesses) to smooth it out, but it was that or appeasement, and we all know very well it doesn't work.
As if the US would have just kept buying 40% of its imported gas from Russia, were the roles reversed.