The solar panels underscore how complex it would be to renegotiate an agreement on environmental goods. For example, at first glance, solar panels seem to be fruits at hand; they are clearly an environmental good. There are still serious problems with regard to the international trade in solar modules. In 2018, 30% tariffs were imposed on imported solar panels after itC found evidence of Chinese dumping. It is difficult to predict a scenario in which the US would agree to import solar panels duty-free from China, especially after lengthy legal and political debates within the US legal system. This single persistent issue, which could potentially become a dispute over equal bicycles in a new round of EGA negotiations, does not bode well for the EGA negotiations. The EGA has also been criticised for what it did not include, namely services and non-tariff barriers. Environmental services include environmental infrastructure services such as wastewater treatment and non-infrastructural services such as air pollution control. Non-tariff barriers (BARRIERS), such as opaque licensing practices, product standards and testing procedures, are likely to be a restriction on trade in environmental goods rather than tariffs. The limitation of the agreement by excluding non-tariff barriers and services seemed woefully inadequate for some countries. On 24 January 2014, 14 WTO members committed to start negotiations on liberalising trade in „green products“ by removing tariffs on a broad list of green products. This will build on APEC`s list of 54 green products.

The countries participating in the negotiations are: Australia, Canada, China, Costa Rica, the European Union, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, Taiwan and the United States. When structuring negotiations, it is a question of whether a plurilateral or multilateral agreement would be the best approach. A plurilateral agreement would reduce the possibility of parasitism; it would be easier to reach and faster to close; and it would encourage others to join over time. The cost of a plurilateral agreement is that a smaller number of countries would participate; others may join slowly; and the overall impact on climate action would be lower as there would be fewer participating Member States at the beginning. Therefore, a plurilateral approach would likely mean more limited progress on climate action than a multilateral agreement. According to the experts interviewed in the context of this project, the main reasons for the failure of the EGA negotiations were related to differences in definitions, the evolution of political factors between member states and, since the beginning of the negotiations, China`s reluctance to conclude an agreement. In December 2016, EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström cited the challenges of negotiations with China as the main reason negotiators were unable to reach an agreement. In the final days of the ministerial meeting, the Chinese surprised their counterparts by presenting a new list of products for tariff reduction, which deviated significantly from what had been discussed and expected previously. The Chinese list specifically removed gas turbines, some electric motors, gas controls and parts of polysilicon solar panels. These sudden demands from China supported negotiators` suspicions that the Chinese had decided they did not want a deal and that they were drafting objections in a way that would torpedo the talks. In addition, the Chinese negotiator at the time was Wang Shouwen, a vice minister. His leadership in the talks, unlike Trade Minister Gao Hucheng, has prompted negotiators from other countries to question the seriousness of China`s negotiating efforts.

A key difference between the APEC and WTO schedules highlights the changing nature of the global economy of environmental goods: the treatment of electric vehicles. The APEC schedule does not directly mention electric vehicles (EVs), while the WTO`s expanded schedule includes many essential components for electric vehicles, such as .B, the Codes of the United States Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), which cover a specific type of fuel cell, or those that cover lithium-ion batteries. As part of a renegotiation of the EGA, electric vehicles and their components should likely be covered. However, the extent to which electric vehicles are beneficial to the environment would likely lead to further discussion and possibly disagreement. The Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) is an attempt by 17 participants representing 46 WTO members to abolish tariffs on a number of goods related to the protection or improvement of the environment. Together, these 46 members account for 90% of global trade in environmental goods. The agreement would expand tariffs on a negotiated list of products called „environmental goods“ and would be signed by a subset of WTO members. Trade practitioners call this type of agreement a plurilateral sectoral agreement: many countries, a single sector. On the U.S. side, in the final months of its mandate, the Obama administration tried to conclude the agreement quickly, which some experts considered too much and too fast. When the talks broke down, the Trump administration took office. The Trump administration has never clearly expressed a position on the EGA negotiations and has refused to play a leading role in the ongoing WTO negotiations.

Given the complications of Chinese demands, the general lack of agreement on what products to cover, and a gap in U.S. leadership, very little progress was made between 2016 and 2021, and optimism about the resumption of negotiations was limited. .