European Aluminium has criticized the outcome of the CBAM vote in the European Parliament, saying the inclusion of indirect emissions in the proposal will lead to an increase in global carbon emissions from aluminum production.
“While we welcome the Parliament’s proposed review mechanisms to test the impact of the phase out of free allocation on industry, the CBAM as it stands today will unfortunately, even tragically, do more harm than good.” Paul Voss, Director General of European Aluminium, is quite clear in the association’s latest dispatch.
Call for gradual introduction
MEPs had chosen to include indirect emissions in the proposal, which would lead to an increase in global carbon emissions from aluminium production, argues European Aluminium. It also said the vote was taken without a robust methodology for calculating the indirect carbon cost of imports, and without an understanding that Europe’s power grid needs to move much closer to decarbonization before Europe can benefit from a CBAM for indirect emissions.
“The CBAM as it stands today will unfortunately, even tragically, do more harm than good.”
European Aluminium calls for a more cautious approach to phasing in indirect emissions, stressing that upcoming inter-institutional negotiations with EU member states will play an important role in reversing the acceleration of today’s carbon shift.
“It would slow down our progress”
“The fact that the text as formulated by the Parliament is causing so much distress amongst precisely the European manufacturers it is designed to protect should give legislators pause for serious reflection. We trust that the trilogues will result in a more gradual phase-in of indirect emissions at a later stage so that our producers can compete on a more level playing field while the European electricity grid decarbonises. Including indirect emissions before the CBAM is properly tested would slow down our progress towards carbon neutrality by 2050. We can’t remain sustainability champions if aluminium production leaves Europe and investments dry up because we can’t compete with more carbon-intensive producers.”