The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), said to be Europe’s largest network of environmental non-government organizations (NGOs), has portrayed the new trade deal between the European Union (EU) and the United States (U.S.) in a different light from the one presented by the European Commission, which hailed its EU–U.S. trade deal as a win for transatlantic ties and economic stability.
While some see the new EU-U.S. trade deal as a step that will pave the way for strengthened energy security across Europe, green groups, which disagree with this assessment, have sounded the alarm, as they believe that the deal risks derailing Europe’s decarbonization efforts.
This content is available after accepting the cookies.
With this at the forefront, the European Environmental Bureau has warned that the centerpiece of the deal, which is spotlighted as a €700 billion pledge to buy U.S. fossil fuels and nuclear energy over the next three years, is “fundamentally incompatible” with the European Union’s 2030 climate targets.
The EEB is adamant that the claim that these volumes of U.S. energy imports will substitute for Russian imports is not credible since Eurostat’s data reportedly indicates that the U.S. already holds a 50% share of the EU’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) market.
This content is available after accepting the cookies.
Luke Haywood , Head of Climate and Energy at EEB, highlighted: “This deal flies in the face of the EU’s climate commitments. Tripling U.S. energy imports in just three years isn’t only physically implausible, it would derail the EU’s mid-term decarbonisation targets.
“Credible pathways to the EU’s 2030 climate targets are incompatible with more imported oil and gas, slow-to-build nuclear reactors and unproven small modular reactors. We should be doubling down on renewables, energy efficiency and electrification. This deal sends a dangerous and dissonant signal to the world.”
As a result, fully replacing the remaining 17% supplied by Russia would add only around €9 billion annually, or just 2.5% of total EU energy imports in the European Environmental Bureau’s view. Many EU countries depend on gas imports; thus, they are stepping up their offshore hydrocarbon exploration game.
This is illustrated by Poland, where one of Noble’s rigs recently drilled an oil and gas discovery in the Baltic Sea, which led the operator of the Wolin license block to describe the find as one of the largest conventional oil discoveries in Europe in a decade.
IEEFA’s Ana Maria Jaller-Makarewicz , wrote: “The EU’s new plan to buy $250 billion of US energy for each of the next three years is unrealistic and could risk the bloc’s energy security. The commitment is part of a trade deal agreed by the EU and US on 27 July that will see tariffs of 15% on most of the bloc’s exports to the US.
“The EU intends to buy $750 billion of US energy in the next three years as it replaces purchases of oil and gas from Russia. The bloc has also agreed to invest $600 billion in the US. […] Massively increasing LNG imports to satisfy the deal is unachievable. Europe’s gas demand is declining, and the market is unlikely to absorb excess volumes. Furthermore, the gas market is inherently volatile, and LNG is an expensive fuel.”
Given the total EU energy imports’ value of around €370 billion in 2024, the EEB claims that shifting oil and gas imports to the U.S. would deliver less than €100 billion extra per year, which in its opinion is far short of the $250 billion per year target touted in the deal even under the most radical scenarios.
Jaller-Makarewicz added: “There is great uncertainty and risk around this deal regarding gas and LNG demand, diversification of suppliers, climate regulations and financial viability. As European gas demand continues to decline to 2030 and beyond, LNG sellers will struggle to find buyers in the continent.
“How much more LNG can the EU buy from the US when a global LNG supply glut is expected by 2030? Incentivising LNG imports could lock in dependency on fossil gas – which could lead the EU to miss its 2040 target of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by 90%, compared to 1990 – and lead to financial risk related to compliance with the EU Methane Regulation.”
This content is available after accepting the cookies.
Therefore, the European Environmental Bureau is calling on the European Parliament and Member States to scrutinize and reject any elements of the agreement that undermine Europe’s climate goals, energy sovereignty, or international credibility.