BETA

Activities of Christophe HANSEN related to 2020/2043(INI)

Plenary speeches (1)

A WTO-compatible EU carbon border adjustment mechanism (debate)
2021/03/08
Dossiers: 2020/2043(INI)

Shadow opinions (1)

OPINION towards a WTO-compatible EU carbon border adjustment mechanism
2020/12/11
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2020/2043(INI)
Documents: PDF(142 KB) DOC(71 KB)
Authors: [{'name': 'Luis GARICANO', 'mepid': 197554}]

Amendments (11)

Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
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), that applies to imports from all third-countries which are not yet part of an effective cap and trade system with at least equivalent GHG emission reduction targets and costs as under EU-ETS, on condition that it is compatible with EU free trade agreements (FTAs) and 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;
2020/11/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Proposes that the CBAM be implemented as an extension of complementary measure to the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS), which would require importers to purchase allowances from a specific virtual pool mirroring the EU carbon price, as long as third countries do not have a cap and trade system comparable to the EU ETS for the volume of carbon emissions incorporated in their products; notes that the mechanism should ensure a single carbon price, both for domestic producers and importers;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – point a (new)
(a) Believes that the CBAM should preferably not have a direct impact on intra-EU production costs, also in order to avoid unfair competition on third-country markets.
2020/11/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Urges that the proposed CBAM apply to all imports in order to avoid distortion in the internal marketConsiders that a CBAM should cover all imports, but that as a starting point already by 2023 it should cover the power sector and energy-intensive industrial sectors like cement, steel, chemicals and fertilisers, which continue to receive substantial free allocations, and still represent 94% of Union industrial emissions;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the general exception clause of Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) should be the basis for any CBAM design and its only rationale should be an environmental one – reducing global CO2 emissions and prevenhence it should not be established as an immediate alternative to the EU-ETS and the related existing carbon leakage; measures.
2020/11/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for thorough impact assessments andExpresses concern that a mechanism centred solely on basic materials could lead to a shift in imports towards intermediate and final products not covered by the mechanism, thereby affecting the EU industry; calls for thorough, proper and comprehensive impact assessments prior to its implementation also aimed to identify measures for sectors where the risk of carbon leakage is highest while taking into consideration the sector’s competitiveness and calls on the Commission 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; calls on the Commission not to replace existing carbon leakage measures with an untested mechanism, in order to avoid major uncertainties and risks for European industry;
2020/11/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Recommends 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 countryproducer level; stresses, however, that importers who are more carbon efficient should be allowed to demonstrate the specific carbon intensity of their products;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Requests that the implementation ofUntil at least 2030, the CBAM framework should be an additional measure to the existing carbon leakage measures under the EU ETS; if after 2030 global markets for carbon lean products are put in place, the CBAM shcould lead to the progressivegradual phasing out of the free allocation of allowances, following an appropriate transition period, since the mechanism; the mechanism intends to ensures that EU producers and importers would have to deal with the samesimilar carbon costs in the EU market; notes that this phasing out should be coupled in parallel with the introduction of export rebates in order to maintain strong decarbonisation incentives, while ensuring a level playing field for EU exports;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that many carbon- and trade- intensive industrial sectors could potentially be impacted by the CBAM, either directly or indirectly, and that it could influence supply chains; points therefore out, that any possible CBAM framework should be an additional measure to the existing carbon leakage measures under the EU ETS; stresses that any CBAM should be easy to administer and not place an undue burden on enterprises, especially small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs).
2020/11/03
Committee: INTA
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for the inclusion of CBAM revenues into the EU budgetonsiders that the CBAM being an environmental measure, the revenues could be used to co-finance projects that foster technological and energetic transition as well as research on low- carbon projects and further projects in line with the Union`s environmental ambitions;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – point 1 (new)
(1) Is convinced that if the CBAM is designed and implemented as an import- ETS system, maintaining the existing free allowances would not result to double protection.
2020/11/03
Committee: INTA