Connect with us

Published

on

EU CBAM

The European Union’s (EU) upcoming carbon border tax is causing waves of anxiety among British green energy producers. As per the new directive, “British wind and solar farms exporting power to continental Europe from 2026 could face CO2 fees, despite producing no emissions, unless the UK and EU agree to amend the carbon border tax.

Thus, industry leaders fear that this new policy could penalize the UK’s green energy sector. They are apprehensive that their efforts to combat climate change could be undermined, potentially disrupting trade relationships.

What is the Carbon Border Tax?

The EU’s carbon border tax, officially known as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), is designed to prevent “carbon leakage”. This happens when companies shift production to countries with weaker climate regulations, thereby undermining global efforts to reduce emissions. The tax aims to level the playing field by imposing fees on imported goods from countries with less stringent climate policies.

Will the EU CBAM Impact British Renewable Exports?

A few days ago, Reuters reported that industry experts revealed how charges outlined in a little-known clause of the CO2 levy law could impact the revenues of renewable energy projects in the UK. This could further add to already-high EU power prices and even lead to higher emissions.

Andy Berman, deputy director of the industry group Energy UK pointed out that it’s a two-way problem. She added,

“(It) disincentivizes clean power in the UK at the moment in which we’re trying to ramp up the provision of clean power, and it’s going to increase (power) prices in northern Europe.”

Catherine Stewart, the UK Treasury’s deputy director for trade policy also expressed her views on EU’s tax policy by stating,

“It is an issue that we are conscious of and one that we have raised, that the UK has raised, with the EU.”

Despite the UK’s commitment to reducing emissions and its robust green energy sector, industry leaders fear that the carbon border tax might negatively impact British companies. The concern is that the tax will be applied to all imports, regardless of the exporting country’s green credentials and carbon footprint.

EUsource: Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism – European Commission (Europa.eu)

Let’s elaborate on the potential impact on the renewable industry and trade relations at large.

Economic Feasibility at Risk

Analysts warn that the additional costs could render it “uneconomic” to export surplus clean power from Britain to Europe, especially during periods of low demand, high renewable generation, and low power prices.

Aurora Energy Research’s analysis, shared with Reuters, indicates:  

  • Up to 3 GWh of renewable power could be curtailed by 2030 if the fee discourages exports. This capacity is enough to supply 2,000 homes annually.
  • Adding a tax on exports essentially reduces the profit margin every time exports occur. By 2030, the carbon border fee could reduce the revenue British renewable projects earn for their power by 5%.

The research firm highlighted key facts about the renewable capacity buildout based on government policy and market forces.

1. Increasing power demand

Europe aims to decarbonize and achieve Net Zero emissions by 2050, primarily by electrifying its economy and expanding renewable energy to cut emissions. Growing demand for Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) boosts investment in renewables. Enhanced energy efficiency lowers power demand.

2. Strong policy support and Government ambition

Government ambition pushes deploying renewables and robust policy support fosters investor confidence. Sudden policy changes or lack of support can harm investor confidence in renewables within a country.

3. Rising fuel and carbon prices

High gas prices have led to a switch back to coal generation. New market players have increased speculation and volatility, a trend expected to continue. Independent Commodity Intelligence Services (ICIS) estimates carbon prices will reach €90 per tonne by 2030.

4. Phase-out of thermal capacity

As Europe phases out coal and older, unabated gas assets to meet decarbonization goals, it creates opportunities for low-carbon alternatives to meet rising power demand. The retirement of thermal capacity strains system requirements like frequency and voltage control, which cannot be fully met by renewables alone.

Impact on Wholesale Prices and Emissions

Market Screener has reported two interesting analyses:

Aurora Research: The company analyzed the consequence of the reduction in cheap British electricity exports. It can potentially spike wholesale power prices by up to 4% in markets like Ireland and Northern Ireland which rely heavily on UK imports.

AFRY Services: The research firm indicated that if European countries increase coal and gas power generation to cover the shortfall, CO2 emissions could rise by 13 million tonnes annually. This increase is equivalent to the emissions of 8 million cars.

The figure shows that: Failure to remove renewables barriers leads to 80% higher CO2 price in 2030 significantly raising wholesale electricity prices for European industry & consumers.

EU CBAMsources: Aurora Energy Research, EIKON, S&P

Can Renewable Exports Avoid CO2 Fees?

A European Commission spokesperson stated that renewable power exports could avoid CO2 fees if they meet specific criteria and prove their origin. However, industry experts argue this is challenging. They assume that most electricity traded across interconnectors is anonymous, making it difficult to calculate the carbon content.

They have also voiced concerns, stating the tax penalizes sectors leading the fight against climate change. RenewableUK stressed the need for a system that rewards green energy credentials without unnecessary barriers. They called for policies that consider the actual carbon footprint of imports rather than applying a blanket approach.

Linking Carbon Markets: A Viable Solution

One potential solution is linking the EU and UK carbon markets, which would exempt UK power producers from the tax. 

Alistair McGirr, SSE’s Group Head of Policy and Advocacy noted,  

“Linking the carbon markets could prevent UK exporters from paying a tax to the EU that could otherwise benefit the UK budget.”

Despite this suggestion, neither Brussels nor London has shown enthusiasm for the idea.

Former UK climate change minister Graham Stuart also spoke in favor of linking carbon markets that could be explored under the post-Brexit Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The European Commission spokesperson added that the EU is open to linking its carbon market with others, but it “must stem from a mutual wish from both parties.”

Green Enhancing, Not Green Washing: Bolstering EU’s Carbon Markets

We discovered a significant aspect of tax implication on industry and consumers from the latest press release of the Council of EU.

Notably, the Council adopted its position on the Green Claims Directive to tackle greenwashing and help consumers make informed greener choices. The directive sets minimum requirements for substantiating, communicating, and verifying environmental claims. This move follows a 2020 study revealing that over half of environmental claims are vague, misleading, or unfounded. Thus, reliable, comparable, and verifiable claims are essential for informed consumer decisions.

Alain Maron, Minister of the Government of the Brussels-Capital Region, responsible for climate change, environment, energy, and participatory democracy has commented on this move, 

“Today, we reached an important agreement to fight greenwashing by setting rules on clear, sufficient and evidence-based information on the environmental characteristics of products and services. Our aim is to help European citizens to make well-founded green choices.”

Organizations like Anew Climate, Rubicon Carbon, and others, hailed the EU’s progress on the Green Claims Directive (GCD) but called for further action to ensure it supports transparent and credible green claims, vital for achieving net zero. Key recommendations include:

  • Reliable Green Claims: Ensure claims are reliable, comparable, and verifiable across the EU to prevent greenwashing.
  • Simplified Framework: Avoid unnecessary administrative burdens and support the use of all types of carbon credits, not just EU-originated removal credits.
  • Uniformity in Standards: Align with existing frameworks like the CRCF and ICVCM to avoid overlap and enhance international consistency.

They collectively believe adopting these measures will boost voluntary private-sector investment in climate mitigation. It would also advance the Green Deal and strengthen Europe’s competitive market.

CBAMsource: EU-CBAM

This analysis emphasizes the need for dialogue between UK and EU policymakers to ensure the tax does not sabotage the global fight against climate change. Furthermore, a balanced approach is crucial for British Green Energy to recognize its efforts while minimizing trade disruption. Overall, the future of UK-EU trade and the global climate agenda hinges on achieving this equilibrium.

The post EU’s Latest Carbon Border Tax Sparks Concerns for British Green Energy appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Want a simpler way to buy carbon credits? Discover our carbon marketplace

Published

on

Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Climate-Linked Supply Chain Risk Is Already in Your P&L

Published

on

The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.

Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.

Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.

You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.

Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings

The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.

Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.

Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.

What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.

The three commodity exposures that hit margin first

For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.

  • Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
  • Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
  • Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.

TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes

The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.

For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.

The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.

What procurement and finance can do now

Three actions matter near-term.

Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.

Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.

Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.

Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.

If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Where should an SME start with a carbon action plan?

Published

on

More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com