scholarly journals A simple fix for carbon leakage? Assessing the environmental effectiveness of the EU carbon border adjustment

Energy Policy ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 112596
Author(s):  
George Mörsdorf
2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 1212-1225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stéphanie Monjon ◽  
Philippe Quirion

2021 ◽  
Vol 101 (8) ◽  
pp. 638-644
Author(s):  
Hans-Wilhelm Schiffer

ZusammenfassungAuf nationaler und auf europäischer Ebene sind die zuvor bestehenden Klimaziele deutlich verschärft worden. Die neuen Vorgaben, mit denen in Deutschland 2045 und in der EU27 bis 2050 Treibhausgasneutralität erreicht werden soll, werden ebenso dargestellt wie die Instrumente, mit denen die Bundesregierung und die EU diesen Zielen gerecht zu werden beabsichtigen. In dem „Fit for 55 Package“, das die EU-Kommission am 14. Juli 2021 vorgeschlagen hat, wird zur Vermeidung von Carbon Leakage die Einführung eines „Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism“ (CBAM) vorgeschlagen. Die Eckpunkte dieses Vorschlags werden skizziert und einer Bewertung unterzogen. Allerdings wäre eine internationale Verständigung auf einen CO2-Mindestpreis innerhalb der G20 dem von der EU-Kommission befürworteten CBAM deutlich überlegen.


Significance Increasingly demanding climate mitigation targets in some economies have raised concerns over industry competitiveness and possible relocations of carbon-intensive industries. The EU plans a ‘carbon border adjustment mechanism’ (CBAM), effectively a tax, by 2023, to penalise imports from economies without comparable climate policies. These types of measures strengthen industry support for such policies, but risk triggering trade disputes. Impacts Efforts to link different emission trading schemes will grow. Decarbonisation policies will change demand patterns for manufacturing inputs. Developing countries’ climate diplomacy will need to be coordinated with their trade ministries.


2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (05) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Pam Boschee

Carbon credits, carbon taxes, and emissions trading systems are familiar terms in discussions about limiting global warming, the Paris Agreement, and net-zero emissions goals. A more recent addition to the glossary of climate policy is “carbon tariff.” While the concept is not new, it recently surfaced in nascent policymaking in the EU. In 2019, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed a “carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM)” as part of a proposed green deal. In March, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on a World Trade Organization (WTO)-compatible CBAM. A carbon tariff, or the EU’s CBAM, is a tax applied to carbon-intensive imports. Countries that have pledged to be more ambitious in reducing emissions—and in some cases have implemented binding targets—may impose carbon costs on their own businesses. Being eyed now are cross-border or overseas businesses that make products in countries in which no costs are imposed for emissions, resulting in cheaper carbon-intensive goods. Those products are exported to the countries aiming for reduced emissions. The concern lies in the risk of locally made goods becoming unfairly disadvantaged against competitors that are not taking similar steps to deal with climate change. A carbon tariff is being considered to level the playing field: local businesses in countries applying a tariff can better compete as climate policies evolve and are adopted around the world. Complying with WTO rules to ensure fair treatment, the CBAM will be imposed only on high-emitting industries that compete directly with local industries paying a carbon price. In the short term, these are likely to be steel, chemicals, fertilizers, and cement. The Parliament’s statement introduced another term to the glossary of climate policy: carbon leakage. “To raise global climate ambition and prevent ‘carbon leakage,’ the EU must place a carbon price on imports from less climate-ambitious countries.” It refers to the situation that may occur if businesses were to transfer production to other countries with laxer emission constraints to avoid costs related to climate policies. This could lead to an increase in total emissions in the higher-emitting countries. “The resolution underlines that the EU’s increased ambition on climate change must not lead to carbon leakage as global climate efforts will not benefit if EU production is just moved to non-EU countries that have less ambitious emissions rules,” the Parliament said. It also emphasized the tariff “must not be misused to further protectionism.” A member of the environment committee, Yannick Jadot, said, “It is a major political and democratic test for the EU, which must stop being naïve and impose the same carbon price on products, whether they are produced in or outside the EU, to ensure the most polluting sectors also take part in fighting climate change and innovate towards zero carbon. This will give us the best chance of remaining below the 1.5°C warming limit, whilst also pushing our trading partners to be equally ambitious in order to enter the EU market.” The Commission is expected to present a legislative proposal on a CBAM in the second quarter of 2021 as part of the European Green Deal.


2021 ◽  
Vol 129 ◽  
pp. 09021
Author(s):  
Vladimir Sh. Urazgaliev ◽  
V. Novikov Andrey ◽  
A. Menshikova Galina

Research background: In the process of implementing the Paris Agreement (2015), Europe is a leader in the formation of new legislative initiatives in order to develop a set of effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. The European Commission approved the European Green Deal (2015) - a strategy for achieving the EU parameters of climate neutrality through the transition to a clean circular economy. Its main goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 by 50 - 55% from 1990 levels and achieve full carbon neutrality of the EU by 2050. As part of this strategy, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is being developed. The introduction of CBAM means a revolutionary transformation in the system of international economic relations. Purpose of the article is to identify and assess possible risks for producers and consumers, primarily of energy products after the introduction of CBAM, as well as the impact of these risks on Russian exports to Europe. Methods: The authors carried out a comparative analysis of scenarios for the implementation of CBAM in the sectorial and product segments of trade between Russia and the EU. Findings: The article contains comparative assessments of the beginning redistribution of international markets in the sectoral and product coverage of emissions, as well as an analysis of the unfolding contradictions in the verification of methods for determining the carbon footprint in the production chains of the real sector of the economy.


2015 ◽  
Vol 90 ◽  
pp. 204-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonidas Paroussos ◽  
Panagiotis Fragkos ◽  
Pantelis Capros ◽  
Kostas Fragkiadakis
Keyword(s):  

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingmar Juergens ◽  
Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé ◽  
Alexander Vasa
Keyword(s):  
Eu Ets ◽  

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 367-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn Eckersley

The article critically examines domestic political concerns about the competitive disadvantages and possible carbon leakage arising from the introduction of domestic emission trading legislation and the fairness of applying carbon equalization measures at the border as a response to these concerns. I argue that the border adjustment measures proposed in the emissions trading bills that have been presented to Congress amount to an evasion of the U.S.'s leadership responsibilities under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). I also show how the “level commercial playing field” justification for border measures that has dominated U.S. domestic debates is narrow and lopsided because it focuses only on the competitive disadvantages and direct carbon leakage that may flow from climate regulation while ignoring general shifts in the production and consumption of emissions in the global economy, which have enabled the outsourcing of emission to developing countries. The UNFCC production-based method of emissions accounting enables Northern consumers to enjoy the benefit of cheaper imports from Southern producers and to attribute the emissions associated with this consumption to the South. I argue that it is possible to design fair border measures that address carbon leakage, are consistent with the leadership responsibilities of developed countries, do not penalize developing countries, and ensure that consumers take some responsibility for the emissions outsourced to developing countries.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document