African countries deem EU carbon border levy ‘protectionist’

From EURACTIV

By Clara Bauer-Babef | EURACTIV France | translated by Daniel Eck

 Mar 25, 2021 (updated:  Mar 26, 2021)

Speaking on behalf of the European Commission, the director general for climate action Raffaele Mauro Petricione acknowledged that “what is expected of an African country in terms of climate policy is not the same as that of a European country.”

Languages: Français

Comments Print     

Some African countries consider the EU’s planned carbon border levy to be “protectionist”. That was the upshot of a conference organised by the French government on Tuesday (23 March), which examined the challenges posed by the EU’s upcoming mechanism. EURACTIV France reports.

According to Youba Sokona, vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a carbon border adjustment mechanism would harm “countries with less financial and human capacity,” particularly those with low CO2 emissions.

Speaking on behalf of the European Commission, the director general for climate action, Mauro Petricione, acknowledged that “what is expected of an African country in terms of climate policy is not the same as that of a European country.”

“This will give rise to heated debates,” he admitted.

Timothy Gore of the Institute for European Environmental Policy shared Sokona’s concerns, noting that “it will all depend on the scope of the measures” and the products that will be included.

“These countries are very dependent on aluminium exports, they will be very exposed. The ambiguity of the European discourse is to define a small category of high-intensity products. But we don’t know who will be affected,” he added.

Poor countries in line to receive funds from EU carbon border levy

The future carbon border adjustment mechanism is part of the “new own resources” for the EU budget and must be used to “combat global warming” across the world, Green MEP Yannick Jadot said on Wednesday (3 March). EURACTIV France reports.

Non-European producers will not face discrimination

While Sokona agreed on “the way forward to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement and to move towards non-carbon economies, as described in the latest IPCC report”, he recalled that 80% of Africa’s electricity “comes from fossil fuels”.

Petricione labelled this figure as “catastrophic,” warning that “energy in Africa is one of the biggest problems we will face in the future”.

Read the full article here.

4.3 4 votes
Article Rating
24 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alan M
March 28, 2021 6:04 am

Surprise surprise, the whole concept of the EU is protectionism

saveenergy
Reply to  Alan M
March 28, 2021 6:35 am

As is – China, Russia, USA …

Steve Case
Reply to  Alan M
March 28, 2021 6:36 am

Anyone in industry who was forced to comply with ISO 9000 figured that one out.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Steve Case
March 28, 2021 6:24 pm

It started before ISO 9000+. BS5752 was the pre-cursor. If any company in the UK that was not BS5750 compliant could not “trade” with the EU. It was all “standardised” in the 90s.

Anon
March 28, 2021 7:09 am

This Carbon Border Tax issue is WAY BIGGER than it appears. While it is being presented as an eco-friendly mechanism to force the rest of the world to decarbonize, it contains within it the following implications and ramifications:

1] It is a tacit admission that European economies are no longer globally competitive. (That they have committed economic suicide and now need protectionist tariffs.)

2] It is a tacit admission that Green Energy is more expensive, not cheaper as we were promised all along.

3] Because it abandons the long standing Western ethos of “a world united by open borders and free trade“, it has a real air of desperation about it. You don’t propose something like this unless the situation is dire.

4] It confines European companies to their own domestic markets (or other Carbon Border Tax countries) as European products will be too expensive for the developing world to afford. Think about an individual making a few hundred or a few thousand dollars a year, will they buy products from Europe or the equivalent products from China, India and Russia?

5] It will force Europeans, who are paying some of the highest energy prices in the world to have to pay a premium for all of the imported products they consume (which is just about everything). This will give the Yellow Vest movement in France even more than soaring fuel prices to protest over.

6] It will require African nations to invest in unaffordable redundant energy grids: one renewable, the other a fossil fuel back up system. Warren Buffet just submitted a proposal to Texas for an 8 billion dollar “fix” to make the Texas energy grid reliable. Where will this money come from?

7] Should an African nation decide to go down this path, how will African citizens afford the energy, as Europeans barely can afford it now? Then, how will they afford the products made by renewable energy, as the knock-on effect takes hold? It was a small raise in the fare of Chile’s solar powered metro that practically brought down the government of Chile last year and resulted in them re-writing their constitution.

8] Should African nations decide to go down this path, where will they get the funds to build out the additional infrastructure? This will essentially make them debt vassals to Western entities like the IMF. Argentina is currently going hat-in-hand to China looking to finance internal energy projects, as they have exhausted their good will with the IMF.

If I were to predict the outcome of all of this, I can easily imagine the developing world turning its back on the West in favor of China, India & Russia (thus disrupting the US globalist agenda for a one world government and economy… and empowering nations the US considers enemies). And if it continues in the long term, there will be 2 world economic systems, one based on expensive renewable energy and the other on fossil fuels. This is a much more likely outcome to occur than worldwide decarbonization, as all of the natural economic forces are against renewable energy.

Underneath all of the feel-good green rhetoric, this is the “chicken’s coming home to roost” scenario that we all predicted would occur and indicates that the CAGW alarmist folks finally have enough rope to hang themselves. IMHO

Last edited 25 days ago by Anon
ResourceGuy
Reply to  Anon
March 28, 2021 12:50 pm

Perhaps this is why Biden and Yellen are doing a less publicized back to back funding of IMF for $1.5 trillion with SDR proceeds to any and all including Iran.

JCalvertN(UK)
March 28, 2021 7:10 am

The EU is protectionist? Well I never!

It is also set-up so as to give France an undue level of influence and leadership – instead of France sitting down quietly at the table as co-equals with the likes of Romania, Greece and Portugal.

Last edited 25 days ago by JCalvertN(UK)
commieBob
Reply to  JCalvertN(UK)
March 28, 2021 7:48 am

What about Germany?

The EU is like the US in that it has richer more powerful parts and other parts that are in no way rich and powerful.

Would you talk about New York sitting quietly at the table as co-equals with the likes of Rhode Island and Montana? link

JCalvertN(UK)
Reply to  commieBob
March 28, 2021 8:49 am

Germany would have dominated Europe with or without the EU. The EU was Jean Monnet’s idea for limiting Germany’s power while artificially enhancing that of France. And I really do think that when you have a supra-national body, (unlike US federal government) that all the members must have co-equal status.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  JCalvertN(UK)
March 28, 2021 12:53 pm

The Euro was Germany’s idea to control competition in Europe and prevent currency collapses in Italy etc from doing damage to German companies in all important trade share.

markl
March 28, 2021 7:45 am

Wealth redistribution morphing into poverty redistribution ….. for everyone but a few countries who have seen through the AGW scam and ignore it.

philincalifornia
March 28, 2021 8:32 am

“combat global warming”

Don’t laugh. Although I’m sure this guy doesn’t, there are still supposed, and supposedly educated grown-ups who still believe this crap.

Derg
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 28, 2021 9:13 am

Lyodo in 3,2,1

philincalifornia
Reply to  Derg
March 28, 2021 9:36 am

She’s not speaking to me. I keep confusing her by typing “logarithmic” and other big words.

Jeff Alberts
March 28, 2021 8:54 am

Is this more of the soft racism of low expectations?

RLu
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 28, 2021 10:51 am

EU workers are unable and unwilling to compete with China and Bangladesh on environmental, labour and safety standards. The Woke religion is walking a fine line. When religious leaders take it too far, heads start to roll.
Africa is not even a consideration … as long as the mines keep producing.

Enginer01
March 28, 2021 10:39 am

As I have pointed out (several times) this whole idea of Carbon Taxes is foolish, because
1) as most of us know CO2, with growing world population, is a net positive,
and
2) LENR has advanced enough to shine a light on the energy question never seen before
–Rossi with SKLed, Mills and Areon.CA among others.

For those of you who like to poke fun at the older “Hot Cat,” the U.S. Navy has just plagiarized the obsolete patent!

https://e-catworld.com/2021/03/26/us-navy-patent-application-published-for-low-energy-nuclear-reactor/

n.n
March 28, 2021 11:26 am

Carbon as in carbon-based lifeforms, specifically humans. Immigration restrictions?

William Astley
March 28, 2021 12:40 pm

Country killing policies have predictable consequences.

China does not have and will not have a border CO2 tax. The CCP have promised that China’s CO2 emissions will peak in 2030. The CCP have a plan.

The EU are planning to implementing a plan which will destroy their countries economy.

The EU is forcing, more and more African trade, will be with China and other countries who do not have CO2 border taxes, rather than the EU.

And high energy materials, that are used for manufacturing, like Aluminum are going to cost more in the EU.

As a direct effect of higher and higher electrical costs and material costs, the EU is going to have massive unemployment and some borrow for ever, governments are going to to default on loans.

Interest rates for all countries to borrow, endlessly is going to increase…

Because the borrowing for ever scam … is just a sad pyramid scheme that always destroys countries.

ResourceGuy
March 28, 2021 12:44 pm

And where is the WTO when you need it? Off at the diplomatic cocktail party with WHO no doubt.

Abolition Man
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 28, 2021 1:39 pm

Probably in a ménage a trois with China and the WHO! Looks like all the international organizations supposedly created to advance world peace and prosperity are merely tarts who enjoy earning the money the ChiComs pay them!

Tom Abbott
March 28, 2021 1:22 pm

From the article: “Petricione labelled this figure as “catastrophic,” warning that “energy in Africa is one of the biggest problems we will face in the future”.”

The UN/EU elites think Africa getting electricity via coal-fired power plants is one of the biggest problems the Alarmist Elites face.

The Elites will be terribly disappointed when Africa doesn’t bow down to their demands that Africa forego economic progress because UN/EU elites are paranoid about the benign gas CO2.

To all African citizens: Don’t pay attention to these Western Alarmists. They are totally delusional about the Earth’s climate and want to make you delusional, too. Don’t let them do it! Build as many coal-fired power plants as you can afford.

March 28, 2021 3:49 pm

All carbon in coal was once in CO2 in the atmosphere. Most was laid down during the carboniferous period.

Matthew Sykes
March 29, 2021 4:54 am

The EU is an increasingly insular backwater. We in the UK should have gone for a WTO deal and kicked them out. The rest of the world is eager to trade.

%d bloggers like this: