Posted by 
BRUSSELS — Climate-friendly lawmakers and countries accused the EU of betraying its green commitments after Brussels unveiled a new proposal to invest in overseas gas projects on Wednesday.
The initiative came as part of the European Commission’s Action Plan for Affordable Energy, which aims to lower the soaring energy bills that have hampered manufacturers since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
The plan will help finance grid upgrades, ease state aid for green projects, and slash electricity taxes. But, controversially, it also promises to explore giving favorable loans to help fund liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects abroad and help ease volatile prices.
That puts Brussels on a collision course with the EU’s green advocates, who argue the idea represents a sharp U-turn in the bloc’s drive to slash its oil and gas reliance. In recent years, the EU has ruled out funding for cross-border fossil fuel projects and limited the role of gas in sustainable investments.
The new approach is “damaging to the integrity of the European Green Deal,” said Nicolás González Casares, a center-left European Parliament member on the energy committee. He predicted strong opposition from MEPs if the idea ends up as a legal proposal in Parliament.
“We need to seriously question the idea of creating long-term gas contracts and also supporting infrastructure in third countries,” added Ville Niinistö, a Green lawmaker also on the energy committee and a former Finnish environment minister.
Yet economic woes have drowned out such environmental anxiety in Brussels. The Commission is scrambling to re-inject life into its flagging economy and meet rising competition from the U.S. and China. EU firms currently pay twice as much as their American rivals for energy.
The EU is also straining to prevent a trade war with Donald Trump. The U.S. president has threatened to slap steep tariffs on the bloc unless it hoovers up more American oil and gas. Wednesday’s plan opens the door to the EU backing investments in U.S. LNG projects.
Defending the proposal, EU energy chief Dan Jørgensen insisted the bloc would still need gas “for some time into the future,” while adding that securing alternative supplies was needed for “getting rid” of the EU’s remaining “dependency” on Russia for imports.
The EU has slashed its reliance on Moscow for pipeline gas by around two-thirds since 2022, mostly by ramping up U.S. LNG imports, but is still buying record volumes of the supercooled fuel via ship from Russia.
Off course
The primary fear of climate advocates is that more LNG means more EU carbon emissions. The bloc is already likely to miss many of its green targets between 2030 and 2050, when the bloc wants to be climate neutral.
“It’s a disastrous idea,” said Lorelei Limousin, a senior climate campaigner at Greenpeace.
The EU plan would “drive up greenhouse gas emissions,” she said, even compared to coal, if it means buying U.S. gas made from fracking. The extraction process emits large volumes of methane, she explained, which is a more potent and planet-warming gas than carbon.
It also sends a “bad signal” given the EU’s reputation as a global climate champion, she added.
Legally, EU countries can still buy gas via contracts until 2049. But Niinistö argued the push presents “incompatibilities” with the EU’s goal — soon to be enshrined in a legislative proposal — to slash emissions 90 percent by 2040.
Some in the bloc agree. With this plan, “the 2040 targets seem to be less and less feasible,” said one EU diplomat, granted anonymity to speak candidly.
“It is pragmatic, and energy security seems to be a much more burning question than climate,” the diplomat added. “We’ll have to see how the [Commission] justifies this.”
Shaky grounds
So far, the Commission’s justification is that the move will help lower people’s bills.
In the text, the EU executive argues that taking several measures — including “exploring the option” of long-term gas contracts by “securing gas liquefaction rights” and giving “preferential loans” to investors — “could lead to a significant short-term reduction in retail prices.”
In fact, any investment in new LNG plants will be a “medium-term story,” said Laura Page, a gas analyst at the Kpler commodities firm, since it takes “four to five years” for facilities to come online.
Given that deals are typically signed by utilities and project operators, she added, “I don’t know how much help the EU will be at this point.”
The proposal may also simply be a message for Donald Trump: We want to help you sell LNG.
While the document avoids mentioning specific countries, Jørgensen, the EU energy commissioner, said the U.S. was “certainly” among the suppliers the bloc had in mind with the push, as well as Qatar.
Still, not everyone sees the Trump-led U.S. as a trusted ally.
“In this exact moment, they are not the best partners for Europe,” said González Casares, the center-left lawmaker.
“Anything related to political decisions by the Trump administration cannot be [described] with the term ‘reliable,’” Niinistö added.
