In response, the EU has proposed a “Green Deal,” which some economists have called “superior” to U. S. law because it combines subsidies and carbon pricing. Even Germany, hostile to any state aid or exaggerated government intervention in markets, has softened its stance, panicked at the prospect of a mass exodus of productive capital from the continent due to Biden’s subsidies. So far, we haven’t noticed this exodus. But tensions over the industry between the U. S. and the EU were still evident at last week’s meeting. Brussels Summit.
Discussions on the concisely titled Global Agreement on Sustainable Steel and Aluminium (GASSA) went all the way. The long-standing disagreements have their roots in the imposition of price lists on the European metal for five years of the former (and future?) President of the United States, Donald Trump. While the purpose of the Gassa talks was to permanently remove those barriers between two friendly economic blocs, they also sought to address the complicated procedure of reducing emissions from the carbon-intensive metal and aluminum industries. a new type of industrial agreement” that will “link market access to climate action,” meaning it imposes tariff-reduction situations on measures of the metal’s “green” grade.
In the UK, this is something that is very much on the radar of the Labour Party and the small ‘L’ industry trade union movement. Keir Starmer posted a video on Twitter this week explaining to his fans that we’re going to want “a lot more steel” to achieve their blank energy “mission” until 2030 (those miles-long loads of cables and pylons have to come from somewhere). Speaking to a jarring rock-n-roll soundtrack, Starmer promised to keep jobs while creating “a bridge to the future” and “a decade of investment in green steel. “
[See also: The Inflation Reduction Act is reprogramming the global economy; Britain will have to respond. ]
But someone didn’t understand the memo. The “greening” of carbon-intensive industries such as metallurgy (which, despite their gigantic carbon footprint, are, paradoxically, a must-have for carbon neutrality) will not automatically create many attractive green industries. Jobs. Last month, the Port Talbot metal factory learned that the government would spend £1 billion to help Tata move to greener production, powered by electric power (rather than coal). But there was a problem: another 3,000 people would be laid off. The president of the GMB union, which represents the staff at the century-old site, condemned “the spectacle of leaders talking about the imaginary territory of a ‘just transition’, when the bitter truth for the staff is that they will be fired off. “
Back in Brussels, talks on the transatlantic metal and aluminium industry have come to a head. The U. S. didn’t need its own manufacturers to be harmed through the so-called European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which means importers will have to incorporate the value of emitted carbon production. The Europeans, on the other hand, did not want the reimposition of lists of values that they said harmed cooperation and hindered the green transition. In this case, the U. S. has now suspended the possibility of reimposing lists of metal securities. – for now – as the two sides continue negotiations to inspire the production of green metals and jointly penalize a not unusual competitor: China.
But therein lie the contradictions of this new era. Reaching net 0 could be faster and less costly if the U. S. and EU were less involved in decoupling or “de-risking” the industry with Beijing. Last month, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, complained about the arrival of too many reasonable Chinese electric cars on the European market. If EU price lists make those cars more expensive, consumers might wonder why they are paying inflated costs for eco-friendly cars. Similarly, brands might wonder why they can’t get the most reasonable product possible, whether it’s steel, aluminum, or valuable metals needed to produce batteries; However, those industries are increasingly breaking through industrial barriers, driving up costs for producers.
This is because governments have other priorities. Despite all the communication about fighting climate change, strong defenses are being built around national economies in a way that some say creates more friction in the industry and hinders net zero. The fancy economic nomenclature of “resilience”, “security”, green jobs and “sustainable economy” can be constantly invoked as if these goals could be pursued together. But it’s clear that they don’t combine so easily. This article was originally published as part of Spotlight’s Green Transition weekly. newsletter. Subscribe here.
[See also: How the Local Electricity Plan Will Transform the Energy Sector]