欧盟碳关税投票通过！范围扩大、征税延长！

导言：

欧盟时间6月22日，欧洲议450 票赞成、115票反对和 55票弃权通过了关于建立碳边界调整机制（CBAM）草案的修正案。

1、新规则内容

此次通过的修正案与拟于6月8日投票的较为激进版本相比，条款内容略显温和，主要是过渡期和免费配额退出时间均延期2年。

但与欧委会和欧盟理事会的草案（以下简称“原草案”）内容相比，此次修正案的步伐算是进多退少，反映了欧盟内部进一步扩大碳关税覆盖范围，以实现有效防止碳泄漏和增强本土企业竞争力的愿望。

增强部分：

（一）扩大CBAM纳入行业的范围。相对原有钢铁、铝、水泥、化肥及电力的五个行业，新增纳入行业包括有机化学品、塑料、氢和氨。

（二2）纳入电力产生的间接排放。与欧委会草案仅核算直接排放不同，新的规则纳入制造商使用的外购电力产生的间接排放,以更好地反映工业生产中的二氧化碳整体排放。

（三）加快EU-ETS免费配额退出。为CBAM的公平性，要求欧盟排放交易体系（EU-ETS）中的免费配额逐步退出。最终于2035年实现完全有偿配额。而新规则免费配额比例分别为93%、50%、25%，并于2032年降为0，比原草案早3年退出。

（四）明确CBAM收入用途。在欧盟层面设立集中的CBAM主管机构，CBAM收入将用于欧盟预算，欧盟将利用CBAM收入支持最不发达国家实现制造业脱碳，以支持实现欧盟的气候目标和国际承诺。

（五）明确违法规则的惩罚力度。在CBAM实施年份，在每年5月31日之前，未向CBAM当局提交与上一年度进口货物中对应排放的若干CBAM证书或提交虚假信息的，罚款力度应为上一年度CBAM证书平均价格的三倍，同时仍需向CBAM当局交出未结数量的CBAM证书。

2.放松部分：

新规则将CBAM正式实施时间延期到2027年（延后一年）。

二、对中国的影响及展望

（1）影响分析

欧盟碳边界调整机制在欧洲议会正式投票通过，不仅象征碳关税在欧盟内部共识的进一步达成，也再一次巩固了欧盟的气候雄心：欧盟志在通过CBAM机制，一方面加快争夺全球应对气候变化的主导权，推动全球共同应对气候行动；另一方面，以“防止碳泄漏”为名，建立新的绿色贸易壁垒，促进资金、产业回流，并利用碳价国际传导强化欧盟碳价在全球碳定价机制的核心地位。新规则对我国的影响主要体现以下方面：

2.中国碳市场建设进入“关键期”。尽管CBAM正式执行期延后一年 。但同时需要与国内产业整体承受水平进行有效平衡。面对多重矛盾之间的权衡，未来5年将成为我国碳市场建设的抉择期以及与国际接轨的关键时期。

（二）展望

欧洲议会通过之后，欧委会、欧盟理事会与欧洲议会将就碳关税内容进行最终协商，对内容达成一致后，将会得到最终的法律文本，根据欧盟的立法程序和过往立法情况，欧洲议会通过的最新法案最有可能成为最终版的欧盟碳关税法律文本。

因此，出口行业做好CBAM政策变化风险带来的影响，并加强对欧盟碳关税条款的合规性应对；及时测算出口产品全口径碳排放量，并根据产品现有的碳排放来源，通过加大可再生能源利用、参与绿电交易、实施技术减排等方式，降低碳排放量，并建立内部碳价风险应对机制，评估碳价成本上涨对整体经营成本的影响，提前做好产品结构优化调整。

背景

CBAM是“2030年适合55个一揽子计划”的一部分，这是欧盟计划到2030年将温室气体排放量与1990年的水平相比减少至少55%，符合欧洲气候法。

目前，全球燃料燃烧产生的二氧化碳排放量中约有27%来自国际贸易商品，虽然欧盟已大幅减少其国内温室气体排放量，但来自对欧盟的进口的二氧化碳排放量一直在不断增加，从而破坏了欧盟减少其全球温室气体足迹的努力。

原文报道如下；

CBAM: Parliament pushes for higher ambition in new carbon leakage instrument

22-06-2022,    Press Releases  PLENARY SESSION

MEPs call for a broader scope and faster implementation of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to raise global climate ambition.

On Wednesday, the European Parliament adopted its position on the regulation establishing the world’s first Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism with 450 votes for, 115 against and 55 abstentions. A Plenary debate was held on CBAM on 7 June.

Parliament agrees on the need for a CBAM to reduce global carbon emissions by incentivising non-EU countries to reduce their emissions and to prevent the risk of carbon leakage, i.e. production being moved to outside the EU to countries with laxer climate policies. However, MEPs propose a number of changes to increase climate ambition.

Broadening the scope of CBAM

In addition to the products proposed by the Commission (iron and steel, refineries, cement, organic basic chemicals and fertilisers), Parliament wants CBAM to also cover organic chemicals, plastics, hydrogen and ammonia. To ensure a smooth implementation, organic chemicals and polymers shall be subject to a Commission assessment of their technical specificities. MEPs also want to extend CBAM to include indirect emissions, i.e. emissions deriving from the electricity used by manufacturers, to better reflect CO2 costs for European industry.

Phasing in CBAM and ending free allowances in ETS

The CBAM would apply from 1 January 2023 with a transitional period until the end of 2026 and Parliament believes it must be fully implemented for the above listed sectors of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) by 2032 - three years earlier than proposed by the Commission. Until 2032, exporters should receive free allocations - 100% in the period 2023-2026, 93% in 2027, 84% in 2028, 69% in 2029, 50% in 2030 and 25% in 2031.

To avoid double protection, any free allowances granted to EU industries in the ETS, to address the risk of carbon leakage in the absence of fair competition, should be fully phased out by 2032 when CBAM kicks in fully for the protected industries.

In addition, Parliament requests that the most efficient EU installations should have an export adjustment mechanism to receive free allocations in the EU ETS for the emissions linked to their export of products regulated by CBAM to non-EU countries without carbon pricing mechanisms similar to the EU ETS. By 31 December 2025, the Commission shall present a report with a detailed assessment of the effects of the EU ETS and CBAM on the EU production of products covered by CBAM and exported outside the EU, on the development of global emissions and on the WTO-compatibility of the export derogation.

Parliament stresses that coherence between the CBAM and the EU ETS is essential to respect the principles of the World Trade Organisation and that CBAM must not be misused as a tool to enhance protectionism.

Need for a centralised EU CBAM authority

Rather than having 27 competent authorities, Parliament believes there should be one centralised EU CBAM authority, which would be more efficient, transparent and cost effective. This would also help to combat forum shopping from importers.

Revenues

Parliament wants the revenues generated by the sale of CBAM certificates to go to the EU budget. MEPs add that the EU must provide financial support, at least equivalent in financial value to the revenues generated by the sale of CBAM certificates, to support least developed countries' efforts to decarbonise their manufacturing industries. This support would help meet the EU’s climate objectives and international commitments, such the Paris Agreement.

Quote

After the vote, rapporteur Mohammed Chahim (S&D, NL), said: “Today is an historic day for EU climate legislation. Thanks to CBAM, the EU will finally have a tool to incentivise our global trading partners to decarbonise their manufacturing industries, as no matter where you pollute, you will now have to pay for it, if you want to export to the European market. CBAM will therefore significantly contribute to meeting EU and global climate targets.”

Next steps

Parliament is now ready to start negotiations with member states.

Background

CBAM is part of the “Fit for 55 in 2030 package', which is the EU’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels in line with the European Climate Law.

Around 27% of global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion currently comes from internationally traded goods and, while the EU has substantially reduced its domestic GHG emissions, those coming from imports to the EU have been constantly increasing, thereby undermining the EU’s efforts to reduce its global GHG footprint.