16 Amendments of Niels FUGLSANG related to 2020/2043(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the main aim of the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) should be to support the EU’s green objectives by fighting carbon leakageincentivising the reduction of imports greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and investments in green and energy efficient technology at European and global levels ;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Welcomes the Commission’s intention to propose a CBAM that would ensure that the price of imports reflect more accurately their carbon content;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Insists on the need for a CBAM compatible with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, since WTO rules do not discriminate between producers, are based on objective criteria and have a clear environmental objective.
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. Notes the diversity of policy instruments allowing to implement a CBAM, ranging from tax instruments to mechanisms relying to the EU Emission Trade System (EU ETS), for example: (i) an import tax, which could be a simple tool to give a strong and stable environmental price signal to administer while being WTO compatible as long it would echo the impact of the EU ETS price per ton (ii) an excise duty on carbon, which could be applied to GHG emissions content of products and would send a stable price signal.Such excise duty could allow EU exports to maintain their competitiveness and maintain the EU environmental incentives while allowing EU producers to operate on a level playing field both within and outside the EU via a system of reconciliation between allowances bought and excise duty paid, as well as legitimate deductions (iii) notional ETS that would create a parallel system mirroring the EUETS prices without distorting the EU ETS allowances price balance
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1 d. Should the CBAM be of fiscal nature, welcomes the possibility to propose a mechanism based on article 192(2) TFEU in order to create a more efficient and democratic decision making procedure in EU energy and climate policy;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. ProposNotes that thea CBAM be implemented as an extension of the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS), whichETS would require importers to purchase allowances for the volume of carbon emissions incorporated in their products; notes that thesuch mechanism should ensure a single carbon price, both for domestic producers and importersencompasses risks of foreign interference into the EU ETS balance;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Reminds the drastic drop in price of EU Allowances in 2020 as a result of the economic downturn induced by COVID-19 related lockdown measures, recalls the unstable features of the EU ETS price signal and therefore calls for any CBAM policy instrument to ensure a price floor per tonne of CO2 is paid and reflects the future upward necessary price adjustments, recalls in this context that the CBAM proposal should be proposed together with a revision of the EU ETS;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Urges that the proposedInvites the Commission to assess the impact of a CBAM applyied to all imports in order to avoid distortion in the internal market, however urges to ensure at least all energy intensive sectors are included in an early phase of implementation in order to ensure the EU environmental objectives are rapidly reached;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recommends that a design be introduced that measures the carbon content of imports through their basic materials composition (as outlined in the proposal from the European Economic and Social Committee); recalls that this feasible approximation would weigh each basic material covered by the EU ETS and multiply it by its carbon intensity value – which ideally should be defined at country and sector levels; stresses, however, that importers who are more carbon efficient should be allowed to demonstrate the specific carbon intensity of their products; is of the opinion that a CBAM would require a strong independent infrastructure to be administered , in particular as regard to the measurement of carbon content of imports, certifications, double taxation and/or the existence of an equivalent carbon pricing system in the country of imports origin;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Requests that the implementation of the CBAM should lead to the progressive phasing out of the free allocation of allowances, following an appropriate transition period, since the mechanism ensures that EU producers and imBelieves in the principle that EU producers and importers should have to deal with the same carbon cost in the EU market and that EU exporters wshould have to deal withface the same carbon costs in the EU market; notes that this phasing out should be coupled in parallel with as non-EU producers outside the EU market; requests, therefore that the implementation of an effective CBAM in a specific sector should put an end to the free allocation of allowances in that sector and calls on the Commission to assess and propose the introduction of exsupport rebates in order to maintain strong decarbonisation incentives, while ensuring a level playing field for EU exportmeasures to exports that would remain WTO compliant and in coherence with EU environmental objectives;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that importers from third countries should not pay twiceare prevented from being double charged for the carbon content embodied in its products;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for the inclusion of CBAM revenues into the EU budgetSupports the Commission’s intention to include CBAM revenues into the EU budget, acknowledges that additional revenues would be generated by both the CBAM and the removing of EU ETS free allowances, therefore also requests that those supplementary revenues would become new own resources, believes these revenues should be aimed at supporting the environmental and sustainable objectives of the EU;
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Calls on the Commission to assess carefully the impact of CBAM different options on Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States, which are most vulnerable to climate change;
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Stresses the need to limit international retaliation measures against the EU caused by the mechanism; urges the Commission to make the mechanism World Trade Organization compatible and to take a multilateral approach to its design; underlines that the mechanism should rely on a multilateral approach as well as taking into consideration the European Union's position as the world's largest trade bloc;