BETA

Activities of Damien CARÊME related to 2020/2043(INI)

Plenary speeches (1)

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

Shadow opinions (2)

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}]
OPINION towards a WTO-compatible EU carbon border adjustment mechanism
2020/12/17
Committee: ITRE
Dossiers: 2020/2043(INI)
Documents: PDF(164 KB) DOC(76 KB)
Authors: [{'name': 'Jens GEIER', 'mepid': 96833}]

Amendments (32)

Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Whereas the Article XX of the GATT allows WTO members to implement measures that are necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health (b), or natural resources (g);
2020/10/05
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Whereas the EU Member States grant many subsidies to the intensive industries through fiscal support, including tax breaks for energy use, and price and income support for energy intensive companies and processes1a; _________________ 1aCAN Europe, « European Fat Cats : EU energy intensive industrie : paid to pollute, not to decarbonise », April 2018
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1a. Whereas the Commission’s communication on the European Green Deal states that the carbon border adjustment mechanism “would be an alternative to the measures that address the risk of carbon leakage in the EU’s Emissions Trading System”;
2020/10/05
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 a (new)
-1 a. Whereas excess emission allowances that industry actors initially received leads to an unreasonable amount of windfall profits (over 25 billion euros during 2008- 2015)1b; _________________ 1bCAN Europe, « European Fat Cats : EU energy intensive industrie : paid to pollute, not to decarbonise », April 2018
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 b (new)
-1b. Whereas recently published report by the European Court of Auditors concludes that the current free allocation system under the EU ETS is not providing an incentive for industries to decarbonise;
2020/10/05
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 b (new)
-1 b. Whereas intensive industries are responsible for a high proportion of the total energy consumed globally (37%) and the high proportion of air pollution produced, roughly a fifth of total greenhouse gas emissions;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 c (new)
-1c. Whereas scientific literature reviews show the absence of evidence that the EU ETS had widespread negative or positive effects on the competitiveness of regulated firms, nor is there evidence of significant carbon leakage1a ; _________________ 1aThe impact of the EU Emissions Trading System on competitiveness and carbon leakage: the econometric evidence https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1 080/14693062.2018.1502145.
2020/10/05
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 c (new)
-1 c. Whereas air pollution has major consequences on health; causing each year 231,554 premature deaths in the EU due to air pollution, almost a quarter of which comes from energy intensive industry;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 d (new)
-1 d. Whereas air pollution has significant economic costs, with an average annual health costs amounting to at least €215 billion;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 8 #
1. Welcomes the Paris Agreement, and the Green Deal and the goal of achieving climate neutrality by 2050; notes the lack of international climate efforts; supports the achievement of climate neutrality by 2040 and the intermediate goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 65% by 2030; notes the lack of international mechanisms to ensure attainment of climate goals in line with the Paris Agreement; believes that an EU carbon border adjustment mechanism (‘the mechanism’) cshould incentivise international efforts to combat climate change, thereby creating a virtuous circle to combat climate change on an international level;
2020/10/05
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Emphasises that the main goal of the mechanism is to facilitate the achievement of carbon neutrality; underlines that the mechanism should enable European industry to contribute substantially to meeting the climate ambitions of the European Union;
2020/10/05
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the main aim of the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) should be to support the EU’s greenclimate objectives by fighting carbon leakageand to contribute to the achievement of climate neutrality as of 2040;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Calls on the Commission to take into account the social dimension of the mechanism in its coming proposal; underlines the need to assess the risks of both intra and extra-EU industrial delocalisation and outsourcing that may be caused by an inadequately designed mechanism; stresses also the need to assess the impact of each options for consumers and end-users in order to ensure fair burden-sharing; favours an option that would ensure that the mechanism incentivises industries to engage in substantial efforts towards the decarbonisation of their manufacturing processes, while protecting them from unfair competition;
2020/10/05
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that widespread, robust and consistent international carbon pricing and fully competitive low-emission solutions wcould render the mechanism obsolete over time; stresses, therefore, that the EU needs to step up efforts in this respect;
2020/10/05
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. PropoCalls on the Commission to assess that the CBAM be implemented asall different options for the introduction of a carbon border adjustment mechanism, including, among others, an extension of the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS), which would require importers to purchase allowances 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 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Calls on the Commission to conduct an in-depth impact assessment on the environmental and health-related impacts of the different forms of the mechanism; advises the Commission to take this environmental criterion as the leading factor in the choice of the form of the mechanism; calls on the Commission to make the results of the impact assessment publicly available as soon as possible, and before the publication of its legislative proposal;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Emphasises thatNotes that while in theory decentralised climate actions can lead to carbon leakage and a competitive disadvantage on international markets for the EU industry, in reality such effects did not occur in the EU1a; urges the Commission, therefore, to ensure fulla more targeted carbon-leakage protection and to consider the inclusion of export rebates in the mechanism;apply the carbon border adjustment mechanism as an alternative to the current measures against carbon leakage under the EU ETS; opposes any introduction of export rebates, which would undermine the incentives for exporting industries to reduce their climate impact; _________________ 1aThere is no evidence of carbon leakage having taken place due to climate policies such as the EU ETS, and ex-ante theoretical predictions have found a very limited risk in the future.
2020/10/05
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Urges that the proposed CBAM apply to all imports in order to avoid distortion in the internal marketfirst includes sectors with the highest share of carbon emissions before being enlarged over time; stresses that this should not lead to internal market distortions and should be conditional on immediate ending of free allowances and state aid for indirect cost compensation to these sectors;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Underlines that, in order for the mechanism to meet its climate objective and to ensure its effectiveness, the price per ton of carbon will need to be significantly increased; affirms that the introduction of the mechanism must above all be accompanied by an appropriate revision of the EU-ETS system and full phasing out of free allowances; calls on the Commission to extend the scope of greenhouse gases covered by the EU-ETS system, including methane, and to reflect it in the mechanism; stresses the need to update the benchmarking and calculation methods, based on scientific evidence, and to end speculation in the EU ETS system;
2020/10/05
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 60 #
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 Europeaas objectively and precisely as possible the carbon 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,tent of imports including the whole value-chain of products; stresses that importers who arconsider to be more carbon efficient than what is assessed should be allowed to demonstrate the specific carbon intensity of their products;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Suggests a progressive mechanism that first includes sectors with the highest riskshare of carbon leakageemissions before being enlarged over time; stresses that this should not lead to internal market distortions; and should be conditional on phasing out free allowances and state aid for indirect cost compensation to these sectors 2a; _________________ 2a CBAM should be an alternative to free allowances under the EU ETS and State Aid. In addition to being double subsidies to industry, it is also unclear and doubtful that both provisions (CBAM and free allowances) would be compatible with WTO rules.
2020/10/05
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. RequeInsists that the implementation of the CBAM should lead to the progressivimmediate phasing out of the free allocation of allowances, following an appropriate transition period, since the mechanism ensures that EU producers and importers would have to deal with the same 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 exportsopposes any introduction of export rebates, which would undermine the core objective of the mechanism, by reducing incentives for exporting industries to decrease their climate impact;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for the inclusion of CBAM revenues into the EU budget; considers that these resources must be used for climate action both within and outside the EU; recommends that these resources could partly feed into the EU's contribution to the adaptation fund for developing countries created by the Paris Agreement in order to support the environmental transition in developing countries; underlines that such revenues should not be considered as permanent revenues because, if successful, the CBAM will not generate revenues anymore over time, as other countries will also price their carbon emissions in an equivalent way;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Underlines that the resources incurred by the mechanism are to be considered EU own resources; is convinced that these resources must be used for climate measures both within and outside the EU; suggests that these resources could partly feed into the EU's contribution to the adaptation fund for developing countries created by the Paris Agreement;
2020/10/05
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to conduct an in-depth impact assessment of differentn the environmental impacts of the different forms of possible mechanisms; and designs to incentivise international climate action and prevent carbon leakage before presenting advises the Commission to take the environmental criterion as the leading factor in the choice of the form of the mechanism; calls on the Commission to make the results of the impact assessment publicly available as soon as it is possible, and before the publication of its legislative proposal.;
2020/10/05
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
8. Believes that the above proposala CBAM is compatible with World Trade Organization rules, sinceas long as it does not discriminate between producers, is based on objective criteria and has a clear environmental objective.fulfils its primary objective of protecting the environment and health;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 107 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Stresses that the implementation of the mechanism must be accompanied by the revision of the EU ETS, as well as the removal of all tax exemptions implemented at the national level on energy used by energy-intensive industries; calls therefore on the Commission to evaluate the different practices of Member States in terms of tax exemptions for energy intensive industries;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Considers that the carbon border adjustment mechanism must complement the wide range of other mechanisms that promote decarbonisation and cannot be sufficient on its own to achieve the European Union's climate objectives; underlines the need to accompany the mechanism with an ambitious industrial policy that is both environmentally ambitious and socially fair, as well as with an action plan for circular economy, and the implementation of the Just Transition Mechanism aimed at assisting the most affected regions by the transition efforts;
2020/10/05
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 111 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8 b. Stresses that the implementation of the mechanism will need to be underpinned by a set of EU standards that would prevent it from being circumvented or misused;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 113 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8 c. Underlines that the CBAM and the EU ETS should not be seen as sufficient elements on their own to reduce carbon and GHG emissions; believes that the most efficient way to do so is by adopting binding norms and standards on products rather than relying upon a carbon market; therefore urges the Commission to make proposals in this direction as well, as a complement to a CBAM;
2020/11/11
Committee: ECON
Amendment 118 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Stresses that, regardless of its nature, the implementation of the mechanism will have to be accompanied by a set of standards that would prevent the mechanism from being bypassed and ensure its effective application;
2020/10/05
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 120 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7c. Underlines that there should be a clear and ambitious timeline for the implementation and evolution of the mechanism;
2020/10/05
Committee: ITRE