Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
EU Earth

EU Agrees To the World's Largest Carbon Border Tax 97

Posted by BeauHD from the time-to-get-serious dept.
Longtime Slashdot reader WindBourne writes: EU is creating a tariff on certain imported goods based on their CO2 emissions that went into production and transportation. While many have opposed this, others have been correctly pointing out that little would change until nations started charging other nations for their polluting the world. In some ways, this already has a number of attributes going for it. With Kyoto, Europe forced that emissions from bio would count at the point where it was harvested and not where it was burned/utilized. This was because Europe is a major importer of bio products for heating and electricity. With this tariff, it will apply any use of bio, including H2, at point of usage, not of production.

What remains to be seen is:
1) How they will apply it to size (Nation? State? City?)?
2) What data will be used (Information from the local government? Satellite?)?
3) How the data will be normalized (GDP? Per capita?)?
4) How to calculate emissions per good (Total emissions? Worst item? Certain parts?)?

This will no doubt cause a number of nations to scream about it, as well as smaller nations, but hopefully, more nations will join in as well. Looks like the world is finally going to get serious about stopping greenhouse gas emissions. "The measure will apply first to iron and steel, cement, aluminum, fertilizers, electricity production and hydrogen before being extended to other goods," notes CNN. "Under the new mechanism, companies will need to buy certificates to cover emissions generated by the production of goods imported into the European Union based on calculations linked to the EU's own carbon price."

Details of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism can be found here.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Agrees To the World's Largest Carbon Border Tax More

EU Agrees To the World's Largest Carbon Border Tax

Comments Filter:

  • Trade Wars (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Monday December 19, 2022 @09:41PM (#63144278)

    This is how trade wars start, they'll use "climate change" to justify high tariffs and nations affected negatively will all go to the WTO and file claims of unfair trade practices. In the meantime, the people of these nations who buy the goods that are excessively tariffed will foot the bill.

    It's another form of a carbon tax and a grab for more money.

    Will nations that claim they're "emerging" get a break? it'll most likely depend on how badly the importing nation needs the imported item. It's funny that the EU is even thinking of this since they need natural gas and it's now being painted as "dirty" despite having to import huge quantities of natural gas to keep from freezing. They will still have to import "dirty" gas to avoid a shortfall. [reuters.com]
    Funny but I remember a few years ago how moving to natural gas power generation was considered a good thing. [cnn.com]

    • Re:Trade Wars (Score:4, Insightful)

      by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Monday December 19, 2022 @10:21PM (#63144312) Homepage

      This is how trade wars start, they'll use "climate change" to justify high tariffs ...

      This is how the oil companies war against reducing fossil fuel usage works. They have mostly given up on trying to claim that the greenhouse effect isn't real and human carbon dioxide emissions don't cause it, because the evidence that it is and they do is so overwhelming.

      Now they have moved to a "it's just an excuse to raise taxes!" argument.

      Not paying any attention at all to the fact that the dollar amount of carbon taxes discussed are trivial compared to the other taxes already in existence.

      It's a profitable (for the oil companies) argument. How can anybody not pay attention to a shout of "they want to increase our taxes!" Even if the argument rationally makes no sense.

      • Now they have moved to a "it's just an excuse to raise taxes!" argument.

        Don't confuse oil companies with a few idiot Slashdotters. Several [bp.com] oil [shell.com] majors [chevron.com] are in full support of a carbon tax. And the other majors (Total, Eni, and Exxon) have taken no position on the matter.

        It's a profitable (for the oil companies) argument. How can anybody not pay attention to a shout of "they want to increase our taxes!" Even if the argument rationally makes no sense.

        What makes no sense is pushing some propaganda that oil companies are doing something they are clearly not. It makes even less sense in the context of this post which is about tariffs on production meaning that any oil company operating in Europe would welcome this measure as it would level the playing field wi

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by XXongo ( 3986865 )

          Now they have moved to a "it's just an excuse to raise taxes!" argument.

          Don't confuse oil companies with a few idiot Slashdotters. Several [bp.com] oil [shell.com] majors [chevron.com] are in full support of a carbon tax. And the other majors (Total, Eni, and Exxon) have taken no position on the matter.

          Strike "are in full support". Substitute "issue propaganda statements claiming to be in support."

          When you have billion-dollar propaganda and public relations budgets, you can both support "think tanks" issuing propaganda against carbon tax, and also issue PR statements saying how green and progressive your company is and trying to worm your way inside the green movements so you can craft the inevitable tax structures to minimize the effects on your profits.

          It's a profitable (for the oil companies) argument. How can anybody not pay attention to a shout of "they want to increase our taxes!" Even if the argument rationally makes no sense.

          What makes no sense is pushing some propaganda that oil companies are doing something they are clearly not.

          https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]
          https://www.ab [abc.net.au]

      • How can anybody not pay attention to a shout of "they want to increase our taxes!" Even if the argument rationally makes no sense.

        It might not be the main motivation but you cannot argue that it is not a rational argument. To make it a rational argument the government would have to return all the money collected to the population. That way it gains no financial benefit from the taxes collected.

        Canada actually did this for a couple of years when the federal government imposed a carbon tax on provinces which did not have their own. The money collected from these provinces was then returned as a flat, refundable tax credit to everyon

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by XXongo ( 3986865 )

          How can anybody not pay attention to a shout of "they want to increase our taxes!" Even if the argument rationally makes no sense.

          It might not be the main motivation but you cannot argue that it is not a rational argument.

          It is not a rational argument because the carbon tax proposed is trivial compared to other taxes. These "libertarian think tanks" (that are actually fronts for oil company propaganda) could be fighting all sorts of taxes. But they in fact spend their propaganda funding on fighting only two taxes: taxes on fossil fuel companies and carbon taxes.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      TFA seems to be confused. This isn't a nation level thing. It's product based. Say you want to import cars. The EU will now consider the emissions during manufacturing. You can reduce import tariffs by cleaning up your manufacturing.

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by angel'o'sphere ( 80593 )

      It's another form of a carbon tax [and a grab for more money???]
      Of course. That is actually in the summary: a carbon tax.

      It's funny that the EU is even thinking of this since they need natural gas and it's now being painted as "dirty" despite having to import huge quantities of natural gas to keep from freezing
      Yeah, and the people using that gas are paying a carbon tax on it: since 2 or 3 decades, Dumbass.

    • Yes, lets lumber new parents with a new tax. IT costs a carbon *fortune* to raise a kid to 21yo. They breath carbon dioxide until the die - 100% emitters. They consume heat, fuel, food, transportation, heated schools, air con - you name it. Immigrants also use buckets of C02 for a new house and car, and multiple kids. If we a logical about the problem, then close the border - hard. Stop asking others to subsidize other peoples choices to breed.

      • How will this affect cross-border travel? I thought that travel was unrestricted in the EU? If you're going to travel to France, from Spain, how are they going to charge a family for their breathing while in France?

        What about the wind? If the wind blows from Portugal into Spain, does Portugal have to pay Spain for CO that blows across the border?

        • How will this affect cross-border travel? I thought that travel was unrestricted in the EU? If you're going to travel to France, from Spain, how are they going to charge a family for their breathing while in France?

          What about the wind? If the wind blows from Portugal into Spain, does Portugal have to pay Spain for CO that blows across the border?

          External borders. All those places are inside the EU. This new policy only deals with external borders.

          how are they going to charge a family for their breathing while in France?

          As noted above this new policy initiative is only for breathing when outside the EU. Breathing inside the EU is already taxed via the usual methods.

          Just remember when you leave and are outside the EU to collect all your breath and bring it back with you to your point of arrival. They will weigh it at the border and allow you a rebate on that years breathing amount. Otherwise you will end up paying for E

    • No this is nothing else than an application of the same rules to imports into Europe that already apply to companies in Europe. That won't stop "nations" complaining, but if a trade war starts it will be because those complaining nations want that trade war.

      D.

    • Re:Trade Wars (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2022 @04:09AM (#63144610)

      This is how trade wars start, they'll use "climate change" to justify high tariffs and nations affected negatively will all go to the WTO and file claims of unfair trade practices

      And? You realise trade tariffs are a legit thing that has a legitimate basis for use. The WTO only looks at unjustified tariffs or breaches of trade agreements.

      It's another form of a carbon tax and a grab for more money.

      Yes it's a form of taxation. Taxation is one of the very few levers government has to enact policy along side regulation and is not a bad thing. The fact that money is involved doesn't make it bad.

      Will nations that claim they're "emerging" get a break?

      Such decisions are never decided unilaterally. I can claim I'm king now and declare my home to be an independent kingdom, but no one will give a shit either.

      It's funny that the EU is even thinking of this since they need natural gas and it's now being painted as "dirty" despite having to import huge quantities of natural gas to keep from freezing.

      natgas isn't being painted anything. It is the same it always was: cleaner than coal but not green. Back 10+ years ago it was always considered a "transition" fuel. You're attempting to rewrite history. No shit they need to import it. That's kind of how resources that you don't have yourself work.

      Funny but I remember a few years ago how moving to natural gas power generation was considered a good thing. [cnn.com]

      What's funny? That you don't understand what you're reading? The transition to gas was and is an objectively good thing. It was one of the leading drivers in getting carbon emissions under control while still providing required fuel sources for heating and industry, something which generally takes decades to adapt. And what of it? Well coal plants across many European countries have shuttered. The year in review will show just how damaging it is to start them up again.

      I honestly don't know what you're ranting about, or what you think it has to do with tariffs to avoid hiding emissions in other countries.

      • Are they reducing taxes elsewhere, so it doesn't just conveniently give politicians more to spe...ha ha hahahahahaha!

        • No. But since the EU defense clearly needs work and a bucket load of money, I've got a good idea where it will be going.

        • Are they reducing taxes elsewhere, so it doesn't just conveniently give politicians more to spe...ha ha hahahahahaha!

          Yeah and? I applaud them for their spending. More subsides for green power, and make fuckwits buying the cheapest shit from China while greenwashing their business pay for it sounds like an ideal form of government at work.

    • Trade wars have already started around the world. In a big way since around 2019. Before that it was more a hit & run approach (GE acquiring parts Alstom, US extraterritorial laws -- Patriot Act, Cloud Act, taxes -- , EU GDPR ...)

      Tariffs are the number one peaceful way of making your laws/values extraterritorial, and to level the playing field if some other nation doesn't value the same things.
      ie : Europe tries to do things cleanly, which is a bit/lot more expensive. So producers go to places where env

    • This is how trade wars start, they'll use "climate change" to justify high tariffs and nations affected negatively will all go to the WTO and file claims of unfair trade practices.

      If your neighbour is pumping sewage into your garden he should not be surprised when he's asked to pay for the cleanup. There is nothing inherently unfair about that.

      • nonsense, nations enjoy the benefits of fossil fuel, especially the poor ones that get our handouts. medicine, machines, food.. all from fossil fuel .

        fake misguided green from alarmist 'hot models' drives people into poverty and lowers standard of living

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rei ( 128717 )

      I've been calling for this for over a decade, and in specific because this structure has already been tested in the form of VAT. This would be "CAT".

      VAT is value-added tax. Goods within your VAT zone are taxed based on the amount of value added in that production stage. Goods leaving the VAT zone are rebated, leveling the playing field on exports. Goods entering the VAT zone are taxed, leveling the playing field on imports.

      CAT is carbon-added tax. Goods within your CAT zone are taxed based on the amount of

      • I've been calling for this for over a decade, and in specific because this structure has already been tested in the form of VAT. This would be "CAT".

        VAT is value-added tax. Goods within your VAT zone are taxed based on the amount of value added in that production stage. Goods leaving the VAT zone are rebated, leveling the playing field on exports. Goods entering the VAT zone are taxed, leveling the playing field on imports.

        CAT is carbon-added tax. Goods within your CAT zone are taxed based on the amount

    • It's another form of a carbon tax

      This carbon border tax is some very subtle form of carbon tax?
      How did anyone not notice before you? It's hiding there right in the name! The brazen cunningness of these people.

      Good thing we have those like you keeping them honest. I hope you let the negotiators know what they were really signing up for.

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by Fons_de_spons ( 1311177 )
      This is not how tradewars start. It is levelling the playingfield. Environmental constraints on EU companies is large and becoming bigger. To avoid production to move abroad, to more pollutant countries, a tax is added. This actually gives an incentive to companies abroad to join the environmental effort.

      Yes, things will get more expensive, but for the right reasons.

      Sure we're still very dependent on gas imports. At least we are trying to move in the right direction. It was on the news this morning. G

    • It'll most likely depend on how badly the importing nation needs the imported item.

      Or maybe the producing country says "If you're going to tax me like that, maybe I won't sell that item to you?" Probably won't happen, but what I can see happening is the selling country adds the new tax into the price. They might sell less, but they may also see the EU as a lost market too and focus on making sells to other regions.

  • Just a reminder that consumers bare the costs of tariffs, and during a time of energy shortages and inflation, this just hits taxpayers wallets even more. Brilliant idea for a continent that's about to go into recession during a cold winter with a regional war on their doorsteps.

    • Re:Great idea! Increase prices during inflation (Score:5, Informative)

      by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Monday December 19, 2022 @10:23PM (#63144316) Homepage

      Brilliant idea for a continent that's about to go into recession during a cold winter with a regional war on their doorsteps.

      From the summary: "The European Parliament and European Council will have to formally approve the deal before it comes into force in 2026 ."

      This is not going to be implemented this year.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Luthair ( 847766 )
      There is always an excuse by deniers about how it isn't the time.

    • We've been coming up with justifications and reasons for pushing the costs of climate change onto our children for a long time. You can always find a reason why someone else should pay for cleaning up your mess.

      It's good to see the EU doing something about it. The EU is moving toward netzero and they are not going to let other countries uncut that with carbon heavy imports.

    • This would increase it, if everything was stable. Problem is, that EU was increasing the cost of their manufactured goods due to their miscalculation with Russia for energy. That was going to run out their manufacturing. With this, it will keep manufacturing local while forcing nations ( hopefully states/provences/territories into dropping their emissions .
  • This is not a money grab or artificial trade barrier. We need to reduce our green house gas emissions and the best way to do it is using the free market. We need to tax carbon when it is extracted from the ground or when it enters our nations. Cap and trade was a huge subsidy to companies that were already polluting. Efficiency targets, like the ones proposed in Canada would have lead to more pollution (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]). Specific bans and other incentives are expensive to implemen

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 )
      Yes, economists agree that making people pay for the pollution they individually create [wikipedia.org] is much more market efficient than splitting the cost any other way.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Luthair ( 847766 )
      The reason we can't do this in Canada is because we're afflicted by US republican nonsense in rural areas, and particularly in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Unfortunately the conservative party has decided to align itself with the lunatics.

    • This is nothing more than a money grab. It won't change anything other than making everything consumers in Europe buy more expensive. It's just yet another VAT on the backs of European citizens that will fund bigger and bigger EU bureaucracies.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

        I feel like you don't actually understand how money or the economy or taxation works.

        Yes it makes things more expensive, that is the point. That is the fundamental principle of supply and demand. It is the fundamental principle of taxation as a level to enact policy.

        It's just yet another VAT on the backs of European citizens that will fund bigger and bigger EU bureaucracies.

        I'm guessing you're American and see all your taxes funnelled into the pockets of people producing weapons of war, but please leave us alone. We like our social services, safety nets and infrastructure, funded by ... evil evil taxation.

    • Taxing 'carbon' when mined or pumped, or when crossing borders, is one of the absolutely WORST possible tax. 1/3 of O&G is used in chemicals ( i.e. not burned ), and IIRC, about 5% of coal is used for chemicals. As long as it is NOT burned for a fuel, extracting Coal/O&G is a none issue.
      EU is on the right course, more or less It remains to be seen how they will implement it. Ideally, taxing on emissions change would do the most good in terms of stopping CO2. However, this appears to be a protectio

    • Oh, REALLY? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tiqui ( 1024021 )

      Simply declaring "This is not a money grab or artificial trade barrier" when somebody proposes a money-grabbing trade barrier does NOT make it into a giraffe instead.

      Then there's THIS bit of unquestioned insanity: "We need to tax carbon" - REALLY? Who says so? You? Some "experts" who have agendas? Carbon is not some horrid artificial thing; it's the element at the base of all life on Earth. With no carbon cycle, Earth would be a giant dead ball of rocks with no humans on it pretending that there's a "carbon

  • So, the undertone here is that iron and steel and bad, now? And fertilizers, aluminum, and...well, basically, things that allow you to live like a first world country? Come on, guys..... if you want to be environmental, it's obvious what the solution is...go live in a mud hut without electricity. A few years of baking roti over cow shit may finally get the point across to you that some things have an environmental cost if you expect to live in the first world.

    • No undertone here. Iron and steel produced with a low carbon footprint will be relatively cheaper than iron and steel produced with a very high carbon footprint. That is what is called forward looking, compared to the UKs decision to open a new coal mine.

      This is not about living in a mud hut or other such childishness. This is about reducing the impact of what we do. This is not impossible, it's just requires rethinking some things and, in many cases, moving to technology that we already have.

      • Wrong. Europe has no choice at the moment but to continue using coal. UKs coal mines were running out. Replacing , or even adding, coal mines is not an issue. It is burning extra coal or oil or nat gas that is an issue. That happens when a nation ADDs new FF burning power plants. For example, America has replaced coal and nuclear power plants. Replacing coal with nat gas has lowered our emissions ( good ), but utility will not be in a hurry to replace the new nat gas plant ( real bad ). Likewise, we have re
  • objectivity. " While many have opposed this, others have been correctly pointing out that little would change until nations started charging other nations for their polluting the world."

    Really? Their opinion is correct? Sorry Hannah, that is not how opinion or journalism work. You aren't doing your job, and neither is the editor - whose job it was to tell you, "Hey, that's your opinion, not a fact. Take it out."

    Utter garbage.

    • I wrote that, not the article. I have a few friends at NOAA and other groups working this problem, who have said for a long time that this will not be solvable until nations start taxing others goods, notably imports. No government wants to be disadvantaged by fixing their own problems while others continue to do nothing ( most small nations), or worse, actually increase theirs ( China, as well as most large undeveloped nation ).

      Ideally, EU will do several things here:
      1) focus on where the good's WORST

  • This will finally fix Europe's in-migration problem as the standard of living of righteous Europeans drops below the places whence migrants are coming.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close