In the context of global climate governance,the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism(CBAM)has sparked renewed attention and controversy,highlighting the complex interplay between environmental ambitions and international trade rules.
According to a Politico report on Monday,Europe's most energy-intensive industries are worried that the EU's carbon border tax will go too soft on so-called heavily polluting goods imported from China,Brazil and the US.The report cited remarks by industry representatives,who claimed that the proposed estimated carbon footprint values are too low for a number of countries.
Meanwhile,a weak CBAM is likely to please sectors relying on cheap imports of CBAM goods-such as European farmers who import fertilizer-as well as EU trade partners that have complained the measure is a barrier to global free trade,the Politico report noted.
The focus of the controversy may seem to revolve around the emissions data assigned to imported goods,but it actually exposes a deeper dilemma in global carbon footprint assessment:the absence of a globally accepted,transparent,and equitable standard for measuring carbon footprints.When the authority to assess and set benchmarks rests largely with one party,without adequately accounting for the diverse industrial structures,energy mixes,and decarbonization efforts of trading partners,the legitimacy of such measures is inevitably questioned.
This gap not only risks provoking trade friction but also underscores the broader challenge of reconciling climate action with the principles of an open and fair trade system.
The importance of this balance cannot be underestimated.As early as September 2023,a spokesperson for China's Ministry of Commerce made it clear that in practice,policies designed to achieve environmental objectives may have an impact on trade.The CBAM proposed by the EU has raised doubts among many WTO members.China always believes that relevant policies should comply with the basic principles and rules of the WTO and avoid constituting protectionist measures and green trade barriers,the spokesperson said at the time.
The situation could be even more complicated as developing and developed countries are in different stages of development.Disparities in historical emissions,current capacities,and stages of development mean that a one-size-fits-all approach can be inequitable and counterproductive.Also,how to accurately assess the actual emission reduction progress in other countries remains an unresolved issue.Failing to address these challenges may not only distort the fairness of trade but also erode global mutual trust,thereby undermining collective efforts to combat climate change.
For instance,China's steel industry has made substantial strides in its green transformation in recent years,with notable emission reduction achievements.According to the China Iron and Steel Association,some 660 million tons of production capacity had entered energy-efficiency benchmarking programs as of the end of 2024,with average annual energy savings reaching 105,000 tons of standard coal per 10 million tons of capacity.Based on this,the industry's total energy savings in 2024 are estimated at about 10.5 million tons of standard coal,with carbon reductions of about 27.5 million tons.
These tangible results demonstrate that emission reduction is not merely a stated goal but an ongoing industrial reality in many parts of the world-a reality that should inform rather than be ignored by international climate policy design.
Reconciling climate measures with trade in an interconnected global economy is a complex task.The EU's CBAM,as the first large-scale initiative of its kind,represents a pioneering step.Yet the debates surrounding it serve as a critical reminder that the credibility and effectiveness of any cross-border climate instrument depend on its perceived fairness and cooperative design.
According to the WTO,carbon emission accounting studies suggest that about 20 to 30 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions are associated with international trade.Therefore,tackling emissions effectively will require greater international coordination,not unilateral enforcement.This means developing mutually recognized carbon accounting methodologies,transparent evaluation systems for emission reductions,and flexible mechanisms that respect different national contexts.
In this light,the pathway forward lies in fostering inclusive dialogue and cooperation toward a multilateral coordination framework based on common but differentiated responsibilities,not in unilateral measures.Upholding multilateralism and shared consultation remains essential to addressing the dual imperatives of climate action and fair trade.
