EU ETS reform must acknowledge crucial differences between industries

Written by Jacob Hansen on 30 May 2016 in Thought Leader
Thought Leader

How to tier and where to tier? These are the key ETS reform questions that need answers, says Jacob Hansen.

In designing the new emissions trading scheme (ETS IV), it is important to build a system that will help the environment and drive emission reductions. At the same time, the system must stay close to economic and technological reality to let European industry continue to grow and provide jobs. For me, it is obvious that not all industry is in the same situation.

The risk of carbon leakage varies greatly between different sectors. This is a fact acknowledged by the European Commission in its impact assessment. Furthermore, it is equally a fact that there are sectors with unavoidable process emissions. In our sector, for example, two thirds of emissions during production of ammonia are technically impossible to reduce because they are an integral part of the chemical process. 

The fundamental laws of chemistry cannot be altered. In practice, this means that where there is a shortage of allowances and the correction factor is applied, fertilizer producers will be affected three times more than any other industry.


RELATED CONTENT


All the reduction will have to fall on is the remaining one third of emissions that are not process emissions. This is neither fair nor proportionate. We have to introduce solutions that tackle both the very real risk of carbon leakage and the challenge of process emissions. 

We need to prevent a shortage in industry allowances for sectors at the greatest risk and we need to prevent a correction factor unfairly punishing unavoidable process emissions. 

Obviously, not all industry sectors are in the same situation, and as a result a one-size fits all solution will not work. By introducing differentiation, the system becomes fairer and closer to the industrial reality on the ground. 

This differentiation - targeting or tiering - can be done in two ways; it could be through an upfront, targeted approach to the distribution of industry allowances, as presented by Parliament's ITRE-rapporteur Fredrick Federley. 

This will go a long way towards avoiding a correction factor kicking in later. This is the same idea recently presented by the French and the UK governments. It could also be a back-end tiering of the correction factor, which is one of the options listed by the lead rapporteur Ian Duncan.

In this solution, the sectors most exposed to carbon leakage will have no correction applied, with sectors having relatively little exposure to carbon leakage requiring a proportionally larger correction applied.

I also believe that the flat rate reductions of the benchmarks should be extended. Encompassing a wider range of reductions will better reflect what is technologically possible. Again, this creates greater differentiation, making the system better reflect reality.

I believe this differentiation is necessary to create a fair balance that will make ETS work for the whole of industry. For me, this is not about winners or losers. This is about protecting our environment.

This is about ensuring that all industrial sectors have a fair share of allowances, reflecting the industrial reality. Ultimately, this is about allowing industry to grow and creating production and jobs in Europe.

 

About the author

Jacob Hansen is Director General of Fertilizers Europe

Share this page

Tags

Categories

Partner content

This content is published by the Parliament Magazine on behalf of our partners.

Related Articles

Issue 460 | 11 September 2017
12 September 2017

Corina Crețu Interview, Clean Energy, EU-Brazil trade, Biotech Week, Antimicrobial Resistance, Jobs and Growth, Copyright Reform, German Elections, 5 questions with Merja Kyllönen and more.

Antimicrobial Resistance: Time To Act
12 September 2017

A Parliament Magazine special supplement in association with PA International on ending the impending threat caused by antibacterial resistance.

European Parliament discusses ETS
13 September 2017

On September 11, a debate took place on the EU Emissions Trading System at the European Parliament Plenary session in Strasbourg.

Related Partner Content

How can lightweight materials such as aluminium help the EU meet its CO2 emissions reduction targets?
18 April 2017

EU legislation needs to recognise the advantages lightweight materials can offer in reducing CO2 emissions from vehicles, write Patrik Ragnarsson and Dieter Höll.

EU Emissions Trading System must recognise those sectors unable to pass-on carbon costs
22 November 2016

The reformed ETS system must acknowledge the inability of non-ferrous metals, ferro alloys and silicon producers to pass-on regionally imposed carbon costs, write Guy Thiran, John Schoenenberg,...

Fixing ETS indirect costs: a final call to EU negotiators
3 May 2017

Policymakers must prioritise direct and indirect costs equally in final ETS negotiations, write Guy Thiran, Gerd Götz, Bernard Respaut, Frank Van Assche, Veronique Steukers & Inès Van Lierde...