4.7 Article

German stakeholder perceptions of an EU carbon border adjustment mechanism

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 17, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac9f23

Keywords

border carbon adjustment; CBAM; EU ETS; carbon leakage; stakeholders; Germany

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The European Commission's proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) has received substantial support among key stakeholders in Germany, with different groups having divergent views on key design options. Stakeholders from industry generally favor the continuation of free allocation of emissions allowances, while stakeholders from civil society prefer phasing out free allocation and covering all indirect emissions.
The European Commission has proposed a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) that would apply the carbon price prevailing in the EU emissions trading system to import-related emissions. We conducted a survey to study perceptions of an EU CBAM among German key stakeholders from industry, civil society, and research in July 2021. We find that substantial support for CBAM exists as well as the expectation that the mechanism will eventually be introduced. We identified divergent views on key design options among stakeholder groups. Stakeholders from industry generally favour the continuation of free allocation of emissions allowances, rebates for exporters from the EU, coverage of only scope 1 emissions, and use of revenues for domestic spending. Stakeholders from civil society prefer phasing out free allocation, coverage only of imports, an emissions scope including all indirect emissions, exempting low-income countries and countries that do implement non-price-based climate policies, and the use of revenues to finance green transformation in low-income countries. Respondents from research would generally rather see free allocation being phased out, emissions coverage of scope 1 and 2, exemptions for low-income countries and countries that do implement non-price-based policies with comparable effects in relevant sectors and a transfer of revenues to support clean technologies in low-income countries and green technologies in the EU. Our survey design allows us to identify three cross-stakeholder group clusters, one containing stakeholders who are comparably more hesitant towards CBAM, a second one with respondents most in favour of introducing CBAM, as well as a 'middle ground' cluster which contains views that are often in between the other two. We also compare the survey responses to the design of the Commission's CBAM proposal to identify the most likely points of political disagreement.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available