[[link removed]]

FOSSIL FOOL  
[[link removed]]


 

Paul Krugman
July 30, 2025
Paul Krugman Substack
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ How Europe took Trump for a ride _

,

 

Like many U.S. institutions, the European Union has abysmally failed
the Trump test. The EU is an economic superpower and could have
retaliated effectively against Trump’s illegal tariffs — illegal
under both U.S. and international law. Instead, Europe did nothing and
even made some apparent concessions.

But notice my wording: _apparent_ concessions. The optics of the
Trump-EU deal were humiliating, and optics matter. If you examine the
substance, however, it starts to look as if Europe played Trump for a
fool. Specifically, a fossil fool.

The EU made two sort-of pledges to Trump. First, that it would invest
$600 billion in the United States. Second, that it would buy $750
billion worth of U.S. energy, mainly oil and gas, over the next three
years. The first promise was empty, while the second was nonsense.

About those investments: European governments aren’t like China,
which can tell companies where to put their money. And the European
Commission, which made the trade deal, isn’t even a government —
it can negotiate tariffs but otherwise has little power. On
Sunday Politico
[[link removed]] spoke
with Commission officials, who effectively confirmed that the
investment pledge was meaningless:

peaking Monday, two senior European Commission officials clarified
that money would come exclusively from private European companies,
with public investment contributing nothing.

“It is not something that the EU as a public authority can
guarantee. It is something which is based on the intentions of the
private companies,” said one of the senior Commission officials. The
Commission has not said it will introduce any incentives to ensure the
private sector meets that $600 billion target, nor given a precise
timeframe for the investment.

So what the EU actually promised on investment was
nothing, _Nichts_, _rien_.

The pledge to increase U.S. energy exports was a lot more specific and
gave a timeframe. But it’s not going to happen. In fact, it’s
going to not happen on three levels.

First, the European Commission, which can’t tell the private sector
where to invest, is equally unable to tell the private sector where to
buy oil and gas. How would that even work?

Second, the promised level of EU imports is probably physically
impossible. Shipping liquefied natural gas (LNG), in particular,
requires specialized infrastructure at both ends. On the US side, LNG
terminals are already operating at capacity, while Europe’s LNG
facilities are “stretched to their limits
[[link removed]].”
The EU just promised to vastly increase energy imports from America
over the next three years, but it’s doubtful whether Europe could
build _any_ of the infrastructure needed before the end of that
period, even with a crash investment program.

And why would anyone undertake such an investment program in a
continent that is rapidly shifting toward renewable energy? As one
energy analyst told the Financial Times
[[link removed]],

European gas demand is soft and energy prices are falling. In any
case, it is private companies not states that contract for energy
imports. Like it or not, in Europe _the windmills are winning_.

Emphasis added because as everyone knows, Trump has a blind,
irrational hatred for wind power.

Finally, even if Europe somehow managed to overcome the legal and
physical obstacles to buying a lot more fossil fuels from America,
both oil and LNG are fungible commodities traded on global markets.
This means that any increase in purchases from Europe would reroute
U.S. exports rather than increasing them: We’d sell more to Europe
but less to, say, Japan and China.

So a big increase in U.S. energy exports driven by demand from Europe
is not going to happen. But how will Europe explain its failure to
follow through?

It might not have to. Back during Trump’s first term, China promised
to buy a lot of U.S. agricultural goods but never did. As far as I
know, Trump never made an issue of it. He got to announce a big deal,
then lost interest.

And if the issue does come up, if there’s one thing officials at the
European Commission are really good at — maybe better than anyone
else on earth — it’s bureaucratic delay and obfuscation. Maybe at
some point big, strong European men with tears in their eyes will meet
with Trump and say, “Sir, we have a temporary hangup over clause
#14159 of the 1986 Single European Act. But we’ll get it cleared up
any day now.”

Bottom line: Whatever Trump may think, Europe is not going to provide
a big boost to U.S. fossil fuel production. He won’t like that, if
anyone tells him. But the rest of us should be glad. As I’ve written
before, renewables are clearly the energy technology of the future
[[link removed]]. Trump and
his allies are Luddites, trying to stand in the way of progress and
keep us burning fossil fuels. Their “burn, baby, burn” obsession
is very bad for America and the world. But at least we can be
reasonably sure that Europe won’t help, um, fuel that obsession.

_Paul Krugman is a Professor, CUNY Grad Center, Nobel laureate and
former columnist, NY Times_

* Trump
[[link removed]]
* European Union
[[link removed]]
* Trade deal
[[link removed]]
* False Promise
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]