The EU risks international retaliation over CBAM

Significance The scheme will require non-EU producers to pay a fee on the iron and steel, cement, fertilisers, aluminium and electricity they export to the EU from 2023. This will aim to reflect the CO2 cost that EU producers pay under the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS). Impacts Carbon leakage could still occur in those industries covered by ETS but not CBAM, such as chemicals, ceramics and paper. CBAM will bring significant administrative costs, with small and medium-sized firms set to suffer the most. The narrow coverage of CBAM reduces its impact on least developed regions, but that could change if the scheme is extended to other areas.

Subject Carbon markets. Significance Prices for carbon allowances in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) have risen this year, reviving interest in carbon markets as a means of combatting climate change. With a report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last month calling for drastic action to slash emissions by 2030, that interest could rise further. Impacts Some 88 countries are considering carbon pricing to meet emissions reduction commitments. Growing interest in ETS may trigger a revival of fraudulent schemes around the carbon market. Renewed concerns over higher carbon allowance prices will make it harder to agree reduction targets.


2018 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Jabłoński ◽  
Włodzimierz Stempski

Abstract Forests and forest management play a vital role in capture and storage of carbon dioxide, which contributes to mitigation of climate change. Forests are not only a natural carbon sink. Proper forest management can enhance biomass production, providing wood to be converted into e.g. construction timber, paper and furniture as well as wood fuels and, as a result, considerably enlarge this carbon sink. Poland, being a party of the Climate Convention and Kyoto Protocol and a member of the EU is obliged to provide yearly reports on carbon emissions and sequestration, including the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector, of which forestry is the leading constituent. Forests, with the sequestration rate at a level of 3.93 t CO2·ha−1 form practically the only important carbon sink in the LULUCF category. Unfortunately the LULUCF sector has not been yet included in the current climate policy framework. The purpose of the study was an attempt to estimate the hypothetical value of carbon stored in forestry, resulting from the reported quantities of the emitted and sequestered carbon. The calculations were based on figures included in the National Inventory Report for Poland, reported yearly to the Secretariat of the Climate Convention. Among the forestry carbon sources/sinks, reported annually, the sequestration resulting from forest management significantly exceeds the net sequestration from afforestation/deforestation activities. Average data from recent years show that forest management is a net CO2 sink, with 12 Mt CO2·y−1 (above the forest management reference level, FMRL), and when combined with the carbon pool change resulting from afforestation/deforestation activities, it can be regarded as a net carbon sink sequestering nearly 15 Mt CO2·y−1. That value, when multiplied by the price of carbon emission allowance (e.g. EUA), could be a source of over 80 mill Euros per year, if used as a commodity on the emissions market. Due to high price volatility of CO2 emission allowances, the calculated profits are hypothetical, and the EU Emissions Trading System does not include forestry. These potential gains can become realistic after the LULUCF sector has been included in the emissions trading system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document