Can the EU actually wanted to take stricter measures against technology companies USAdeforestation of forests and foreign companies that do not adhere to European environmental standards.
But under the pressure of the threat of punitive duties by US President Donald Trump – and from its own industry – it could now retreat to some places. Diplomats say the negotiations are in the decisive phase and hope for a major development this week. To achieve this, the EU Commission (Commission) does not only want to reduce duties and buy more American gas.
It is obviously also willing to show greater flexibility in terms of regulations, according to Handelsblatt. There is a clear resistance from the EU parliament.
Officially, the Commission rejects this narrative. Europe’s values are non -negotiable, he says. In fact, however, the Commission has a discretion when it is going to implement many European regulations. At the same time, in Brussels, plans are forged to reduce the regulatory weight of the economy, some of which move in a similar direction to US requirements.
Overview of the most important areas:
1. Regulation to deforestation of forests
EU regulation on deforestation should prevent EU consumers from indirectly contributing to global deforestation. Companies should prove that products such as coffee, cocoa, palm oil or paper are not produced in recently deforestation.
The law would directly affect the US, which exports paper, wood and other forest products worth more than 3.5 billion euros in the EU each year. Large American chocolate production companies, such as Mondelez, Mars and Hershey, are also pushing for relaxation. This is because they must prove that virgin forests have not been extracted to cultivate raw materials cocoa and palm oil.
Under the pressure of many export countries, the Commission had already postponed the law for one year. Now the Commission wants to categorize the US as a “low -risk country of origin”, excluding them essentially by law.
In June, Trump allowed the deforestation of large, previously protected areas. He wants to allow the re -cutting of American primitive forests, such as the Tongass National Park in Alaska and the national forests around Yosemite Park in California. According to the original EU legislation, wood and fiber from these forests would not be allowed to end up in Europe.
2. Regulation on methane
The EU has already approached Trump in the energy sector. Instead of Russia, the EU wants to introduce more liquefied natural gas to the future than the US – on the one hand to stop filling Russia’s war chest and on the other as a bargaining offering to the US.
The EU also wants to review its methane regulation. The purpose of this law is to reduce methane emissions, a particularly harmful greenhouse gas. Large quantities of methane are sometimes released during natural gas extraction by the so -called Fracking method. Some producers simply burn the gas instead of binding it or have leaks.
As a result, the EU wanted to force manufacturers abroad to avoid methane emissions as much as technically possible. For some US companies, this would require investment.
“European law does not belong to the negotiating table on trade agreements,” Jutta Paulus (Greens) criticizes. “Especially when it comes to regulating the second major greenhouse gas.” Consequently, all other export countries could also cite the exception to natural gas fracking.
3. Climate duty
The CO2 border adaptation mechanism is also one of the laws that Trump opposes – if anything because it relates to compliance with the Paris climate goals, from which Trump has been removed.
Along with emissions, the border adaptation mechanism (briefly CBAM) is one of the most important EU climate protection laws. It provides that importers from countries that do not have their own emission trading system pay an end to the EU border.
This aims to ensure that European manufacturers do not have sanctions. This is because they must buy broadcasting rights to produce CO2 intensity products. Adaptation of CO2 border aims to offset this competitive disadvantage and motivate non -European producers to also reduce their emissions. Trump calls on the EU to abolish the CBAM, at least for the US.
In a first step, the EU Committee has already adapted the CO2 border adjustment mechanism. In the future, 91% of companies initially influenced by CBAM will be excluded. The EU committee justifies this measure by stating that the bureaucratic burden for the affected companies is high, but the benefit is low. 99% of emissions should be recorded in the future despite the exemption. The EU Committee has already announced further changes to the law at the end of the year.
4. Adjustment of technology
The regulation of US digital companies is one of Trump’s main criticisms for the EU. A specific law is at the center: The Digital Markets ACT – DMA law. It reinforces the rights of smaller EU companies compared to US technology giants because it forces large market companies that dominate the market to provide their competitors fair access to the market. Violations can lead to sanctions of up to ten percent of the world turnover.
In April, the EU committee imposed sanctions on DMA against US Apple and Meta technology companies for the first time. European entrepreneurs are talking about “perhaps the last chance to limit the power of digital monopolies”.
According to Handelsblatt, however, the EU Commission wants to facilitate the US government on DMA and give the United States a reason for implementing the EU law. This has been criticized by the European digital industry: although DMA remains in place on paper, the EU is essentially braking its implementation.