Environmental groups have criticized a new trade deal that could see Europe spending more than $750 billion (€700 billion) on mostly fossil fuel imports from the United States over the next three years, warning it could undermine the bloc's climate targets. 

"This risks locking Europe into decades of fossil fuel dependence, volatile energy bills and accelerating the wildfires and flooding already wreaking havoc across the continent," said Andreas Sieber, associate director of policy and campaigns at climate group 350.org, in a statement.

As part of an agreement dubbed by US President Donald Trump as the "biggest deal ever," EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said US energy would replace Russian oil and gas, "which we do not want anymore."

Instead, Europe would purchase "more affordable and better" liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the US, said von der Leyen. 

The deal, which helped avert a trade war, includes a 15% tariff on key EU exports to the US such as cars.

But critics have said it represents an "about-turn" in Europe's climate policy. 

"The new US-EU trade deal is a dramatic U-turn on the European Commission's and President von der Leyen's priorities from a couple of years ago," said Esther Bollendorff, senior gas policy coordinator at climate group CAN Europe.

"Namely, building a future-proof European Green Deal based on climate ambition and rapid renewables build-out."

The Commission, under von der Leyen, unveiled its Green Deal to ramp up Europe's ambitions on fighting climate change at the end of 2019. Scientists have found that Europe is the fastest-warming region globally; the continent saw its hottest year on record in 2024. 

What would the fossil fuel deal mean for the climate?

Just weeks ago, the Commission presented proposals for a 90% bloc-wide reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 compared with 1990 levels.

The mid-term target aims to help the EU reach its wider 2050 goal of carbon neutrality, with measures including improving energy efficiency, electrifying the transport sector and boosting green energy. In the next five years, the bloc aims to have 42.5% of its energy come from renewable sources. 

The US-EU trade deal "flies in the face" of these commitments, said Luke Haywood, head of climate and energy at the European Environmental Bureau, a network of environmental organizations. 

"Tripling US energy imports in just three years isn't only physically implausible, it would derail the EU's mid-term decarbonization targets," he said in a statement.

Burning oil and gas emits greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which trap heat in the atmosphere and warm the planet, fueling more extreme weather.

Swapping pipeline gas for American LNG would further increase Europe's emissions, said Chris Aylett, a research fellow at the Environment and Society Centre of UK-based independent policy institute Chatham House. That's because LNG production and transport emits more methane — a greenhouse gas far more potent than CO2, though it doesn't stay as long in the atmosphere.  

But EU Commission spokesperson Anna-Kaisa Itkonen told reporters on Thursday that the trade deal would only affect the next three years, while the bloc's decarbonization targets "go way beyond" that.

"So this will have no impact on our decarbonization targets — none whatsoever," she added.

Can Europe keep its energy purchase promises?

Still, there is skepticism about whether Europe can live up to its new pledge on US energy spending, with Aylett saying it would be "very difficult."

In 2024, the EU imported around €60 billion worth of oil and gas from the US. Another €24 billion came from Russia. Taken together, that's a "long way away" from the €216 billion the EU promised to spend each year, Aylett told DW. 

The European Commission also cannot force member states or companies to buy US energy, said Aylett.

"It's an aspiration, really. The EU has the means that it could encourage it [...] but it's all voluntary, so the Commission itself wouldn't be making the purchases," he added. "In some ways the promise has been made that the Commission itself doesn't really have any ability to deliver."

Swapping dependence on Russian energy with reliance on the US could also be "catastrophic" for energy security, warned Aylett.

"It would be breaking the very first rule, which is that you don't just rely on one supplier," he said, adding that it would make the bloc "extremely vulnerable."

This article was updated on July 31, 2025, with a comment from EU Commission spokesperson Anna-Kaisa Itkonen.

DW correspondent Rosie Birchard contributed to this report from Brussels.

Edited by: Jennifer Collins