And for some US $ 750 billion. The European Union is committed to importing enormous quantities of American energy to avoid a trade war with Donald Trump, but these commands of liquefied natural gas and oil alarming climate defenders.
• Read also: Europe defends the trade agreement concluded with Trump
• Read also: Donald Trump imposes his “golf diplomacy” in Scotland
• Read also: Commercial agreement with the United States: does Canada want an agreement like Europeans?
Brussels assures it, this massive amount was not simply displayed to satisfy the American billionaire. The European Union says it has “evaluated” its needs, when it intends to give up all its imports of Russian energy by the end of 2027, due to the war in Ukraine.
But the calculation is subject to question. Because it is not the European Union that buys this energy, but private companies. Everything will depend on their order books and it will take “infrastructure” in the face of such an increase in supplies, an official of the European Commission is agreed.
For three years, Europe tried to purchase American energy – especially oil and gas – of US $ 250 billion each year, more than three times higher than current imports from the United States (around US $ 70 billion in 2024).
This would represent more than half of everything the European Union spent to import energy in 2024 – 375.9 billion euros or around 435.5 billion USD – according to Eurostat.
So much so that several specialists deem the unrealistic objective, both on the side of supply and demand.
Because three years would not be enough in the United States to develop such export capacities, estimates Simone Tagliapietra, analyst at the European Bruegel reflection center.
And on the request, this “are the dynamics of the market that determine the choices of energy companies” and not announcements from the European Commission, recalls this expert, while imports fell in 2024.
“Gas demand in Europe is decreasing”, and the market “little likely to absorb excess volumes”, also says Ana Maria Jaller-Makarewicz, of the IEEFA Institute (Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis).
“Submission”
A good part of the billions promised in the United States would be devoted to liquefied natural gas (LNG) transported by ship, unloaded in ports, regasified and then injected into the European network.
The United States represents approximately half of the LNG imported into the European Union currently, ahead of Russia (20% of imports), to which Brussels wants to cut the tap.
Environmental defenders fear a massive arrival of American LNG, partly produced from the controversial process of hydraulic fracturing.
They point to the contradiction with the EU’s climatic ambitions, which plans to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels.
“The commission risks replacing a disastrous dependence by another – to disconnect Putin gas and plug that of Trump,” fulminated the NGO Greenpeace in May.
François Gemenne, Belgian researcher in climate policy and co-author of the 6th IPCC report, denounces a “submission to the fossil policy of Donald Trump”, who took advantage of the meeting on Sunday with the president of the commission, Ursula von der Leyen, to attack as he often does to wind turbines.
The “deal” concluded with Trump “jeopardizes” the “decarbonation objectives” of the European Union, abounds Aymeric Kouam, at Strategic Perspectives, another center of reflection on the energy transition.
According to him, this “compromises the energy security strategy” of Europe “which is based on the diversification of supplies, the development of renewables and the improvement of energy efficiency”.
The Commission retorts that imports only concern the next three years to compensate for the end of Russian gas. “This does not contradict our long-term climatic objectives,” said a spokesperson.
Brussels also indicates that the envelope could include commands of “nuclear reactors”, probably SMR, small modular reactors.
This agreement comes as the European Union debates its climate trajectory for 2040.
The Commission recently proposed to maintain its reduction objective of 90% of greenhouse gas emissions in 2040 compared to 1990, but by introducing “flexibilities” in the calculation method, in an attempt to rally the most reluctant states.
