Activities of Joachim SCHUSTER related to 2020/2043(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
A WTO-compatible EU carbon border adjustment mechanism (continuation of debate)
Amendments (24)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. IWelcomes the European goal of achieving a socially just transition to climate neutrality by 2050 as well as the 60%-goal for 2030; notes with concern the lack of ambition in climate efforts in EU trade policy as well as in many other policy spheres; calls for the Paris Agreement and its 1.5 percent goal to become the guiding principle of trade policy to which all trade initiatives must be adjusted; is convinced that such a purpose-built trade policy can be an important driver in steering economies towards decarbonisation in order to achieve the climate objectives set in the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the main aim of the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) should be to support the EU’s green objectives by fighting carbon leakageWelcomes the European goal of achieving a socially just transition to climate neutrality by 2050 as well as the 60%-goal for 2030; notes with concern the lack of ambition in climate efforts in EU economic policy as well as in many other policy spheres; calls for the Paris Agreement and its 1.5 percent goal to become the guiding principle of economic policy to which all initiatives must be adjusted; Believes that the main aim of the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) should be to support the EU’s green objectives by fighting carbon leakage; underlines that a universal system needs to be the final goal of the initiative since decentral climate protection measures will not have the desired effect and would only result in carbon leakage as well as have disadvantageous effects on European industries; thus suggests the externalisation of the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS) as a possible CBAM; expects the Commission to initiate negotiations for a global approach within the framework of the WTO or the G20;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to propose a CBAM that would ensure that the price of imports reflect more accurately their carbon content;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Insists on the need for a CBAM compatible with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, since WTO rules do not discriminate between producers, are based on objective criteria and have a clear environmental objective.
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Supports, in the absence of a global carbon price and a multilateral solution, a market-based EU carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) on condition that it is compatible with EU free trade agreements (FTAs) andcalls for EU free trade agreements (FTAs) to be made compatible with such a mechanism by way of using the respective review clauses in FTAs, in case the FTAs are not yet compatible with such a mechanism ; calls for the CBAM to be compatible with WTO rules (by being non- discriminatory and not constituting a disguised restriction on international trade), and that it is proportionate, based on the polluter pays principle and fit for purpose in delivering the climate objectives;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. Notes the diversity of policy instruments allowing to implement a CBAM, ranging from tax instruments to mechanisms relying to the EU Emission Trade System (EU ETS), for example: (i) an import tax, which could be a simple tool to give a strong and stable environmental price signal to administer while being WTO compatible as long it would echo the impact of the EU ETS price per ton (ii) an excise duty on carbon, which could be applied to GHG emissions content of products and would send a stable price signal.Such excise duty could allow EU exports to maintain their competitiveness and maintain the EU environmental incentives while allowing EU producers to operate on a level playing field both within and outside the EU via a system of reconciliation between allowances bought and excise duty paid, as well as legitimate deductions (iii) notional ETS that would create a parallel system mirroring the EUETS prices without distorting the EU ETS allowances price balance
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1 d. Should the CBAM be of fiscal nature, welcomes the possibility to propose a mechanism based on article 192(2) TFEU in order to create a more efficient and democratic decision making procedure in EU energy and climate policy;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Underlines that the WTO rules are incompatible with the Paris Agreement; expects the Commission to take urgent initiative for WTO reform in order to achieve compatibility with the climate objectives;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the general exception clause of Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) shcould be the basis for any CBAM design and its only rationale should be an environmental one – reducing global CO2 emissions and preventing carbon leakage; underlines that a universal system needs to be the final goal of the initiative since decentral climate protection measures will not have the desired effect and would only result in carbon leakage as well as have disadvantageous effects on European industries; thus suggests the externalisation of the European ETS as a possible CBAM; expects the Commission to initiate negotiations for a global approach within the framework of the WTO or the G20;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Urges that the proposedInvites the Commission to assess the impact of a CBAM applyied to all imports in order to avoid distortion in the internal market, however urges to ensure at least all energy intensive sectors are included in an early phase of implementation in order to ensure the EU environmental objectives are rapidly reached;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls for a calculation method for carbon contents that does not disadvantage European producers; calls for a calculation method that takes into account to the highest possible extent the real carbon content of the goods concerned; suggests that an independent agency should be responsible for the definition of the most realistic carbon content of goods as well as the determination of the respective good’s market entry price; calls for the inclusion of existing third country carbon pricing systems in the calculation;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. RecommCalls for a calculation method for carbon contendts that a design be introduced that measures the carbon content of imports through their basic materials composition (as outlined in the proposal from the European Economic and Social Committee); recalls that this feasible approximation would weigh each basic material covered by the EU ETS and multiply it by its carbon intensity value – which ideally should be defined at country level; stresses, however, that importers who are more carbon efficient should be allowed to demonstrate the specificdoes not disadvantage European producers; calls for a calculation method that takes into account to the highest possible extent the real carbon content of the goods concerned; suggests that an independent agency should be responsible for the definition of the most realistic carbon content of goods as well as the determination of the respective good’s market entry price; calls for the inclusion of existing third country carbon pricing systems in the calculation; asks the Commission to consider evaluating all products according to a worst-in-class approach, i.e. assume the most emission- rich production method and thus provide an incentive for producers to share information on their products carbon icontensity of their productst in order to pay a lower carbon border adjustment;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Asks the Commission to consider evaluating all products according to a worst-in-class approach, i.e. assume the most emission-rich production method and thus provide an incentive for producers to share information on their products carbon content in order to pay a lower CBA;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Asks the Commission to start implementing the mechanism as soon as possible with a view to pilot sectors in which the carbon contents of goods are easily identified;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for thorough impact assessments and for the utmost transparency of the process leading to the CBAM, as well as engagement with the EU’s trading partners to build coalitions and avoid any possible retaliations;mongst it the publication of all studies conducted during the build up of the mechanism; calls for the comprehensive integration of the European Parliament at all stages of the development process as well as engagement with the EU’s trading partners to build plurilateral CO2-pricing systems coalitions and avoid retaliations as far as possible; asks the Commission to take into consideration existing and future third country CO2-pricing systems
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Requests that the implementation of the CBAM should lead to the progressive phasing out of the free allocation of allowances, following an appropriate transition period, since the mechanism ensures that EU producers and imBelieves in the principle that EU producers and importers should have to deal with the same carbon cost in the EU market and that EU exporters wshould have to deal withface the same carbon costs in the EU market; notes that this phasing out should be coupled in parallel with as non-EU producers outside the EU market; requests, therefore that the implementation of an effective CBAM in a specific sector should put an end to the free allocation of allowances in that sector and calls on the Commission to assess and propose the introduction of exsupport rebates in order to maintain strong decarbonisation incentives, while ensuring a level playing field for EU exportmeasures to exports that would remain WTO compliant and in coherence with EU environmental objectives;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that importers from third countries should not pay twiceare prevented from being double charged for the carbon content embodied in its products;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls for the resources generated by the CBAM to be re-invested in the development of carbon neutral technologies and the build-up of an independent agency responsible for the definition of carbon contents as well as market-entry prices; requests that the revenue is re-invested in the scope of the EU-budget; calls for the CBAM to be applicable to imports of all trading partners in order not to discriminate; however calls for part of the revenues from the CBAM to be channelled into an international fund for climate, such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF), to support developing countries in the sustainable transition, reduce their GHG emissions and enhance their ability to respond to climate change.
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for the inclusion of CBAM revenues into the EU budget and earmarked as for fighting climate change actions of the EU; calls for the resources generated by the CBAM to be re-invested in the development of carbon neutral technologies and in the build-up of an independent agency responsible for the definition of carbon contents as well as market-entry prices;
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Calls on the Commission to assess carefully the impact of CBAM different options on Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States, which are most vulnerable to climate change;
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Believes that the above proposal is compatible with World Trade Organization rules, since it does not discriminate between producers, is based on objective criteria and has a clear environmental objective.; expects the Commission to take urgent initiative for WTO reform in order to achieve full compatibility with the climate objectives of the Paris agreement;
Amendment 100 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Calls for the establishment of a meticulous monitoring mechanism for the CBAM as well as a monitoring and review-process in which the European Parliament is involved to the fullest extent;
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Calls for CBAM revenues to support global and European climate action; revenues could be channelled to different funds, such as: the Rapid Response Fund via a new own resource of the EU, an international climate fund to support least developed countries in their sustainable transition, an innovation fund for sustainable technologies for European industry and the establishment of an independent agency conducting the CBAM;
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Calls the Commission for an impact assessment and for the comprehensive integration of the European Parliament at all stages of the development process; calls for the establishment of a meticulous monitoring mechanism for the CBAM as well as a monitoring and review-process in which the European Parliament is involved to the fullest extent;