Britain facing race to avoid $1 billion in EU carbon tax costs
LONDON/BRUSSELS, June 2 (Reuters) - Britain will struggle to link its carbon market to the EU's in just seven months, to avoid UK companies facing the bloc's carbon border tariff and annual bills around 800 million pounds ($1.08 billion) from next year, market experts have said.
Billed as part of a "reset" in relations after Britain's 2016 exit from the European Union, the two sides announced last month they will link their carbon emissions trading systems by the end of the year.
But neither side has set a timeframe or detailed the work that must be done to make this happen before January, when Europe's carbon border tax kicks in.
"It's probably still likely to take many years before linkage takes effect. The earliest is 2028, but it's more likely to be 2029 or even 2030," said Ben Lee, senior emissions analyst at Energy Aspects.
The UK government said a key upside of linking to the EU's carbon market, or emissions trading system (ETS), is to avoid businesses being hit by the EU's carbon border tariff - which, starting next year, will impose fees on the CO2 emissions associated with imports of steel, cement and other goods. The UK government said avoiding these costs would save 800 million pound a year.
But EU officials say to get exempted from the carbon border levy, Britain would need to have linked its carbon market to the EU's.
"Full linkage will take several years given the complexity of the process, purely from a technical perspective," ClearBlue carbon market analyst Yan Qin said, adding that an "optimistic" scenario could see the link forged in 2027.
A spokesperson for the British government said it will seek to agree a carbon market link as soon as is feasible. "We will not provide a running commentary on the progress of negotiations," they said.
To make a link happen, the UK needs to adjust its national rules for issuing carbon trading permits, bring its emissions permit auctions in line with EU rules, and change its national cap on how much companies covered by the carbon market can emit.
That's not all. The EU and UK schemes are also not yet aligned on how many free CO2 permits they give industries. And the EU carbon market has a special "reserve" which adds or removes permits from the market to help stabilise prices.
Britain's scheme currently lacks a "reserve", though it has a cost containment mechanism that can act as a ceiling on prices, something the EU scheme does not have.
"Resolving the question of a supply adjustment mechanism will likely be one of the technical calibrations that will need to be in place before the two systems can link," said Veyt senior analyst Ingvild Sorhus.
Some businesses argue these issues are technically straightforward to resolve.
"With the right political will, an ETS linking agreement between the EU and UK could be signed within 6 months, and operational by 2028," said Alistair McGirr, Head of Policy and Advocacy at British energy firm SSE.
Industry group Energy UK said linkage negotiations could conclude within a year - but that Britain should seek an exemption from the EU carbon border levy until the link is sealed, in case talks drag into 2026.
"It is a question not of major political roadblocks, but primarily of technical processes ... I'm not saying these are small problems, but they are simply not intractable problems," Energy UK Policy Director Adam Berman said, of the changes needed to allow the link.
The UK plans to launch its own carbon border tariff a year later, in 2027.
Brussels may be in less of a hurry. Britain's carbon market is less than a tenth of the size of the EU's, so a link would see British businesses gain access to a much more liquid market.
The upside for the EU is less clear - although EU officials cite the bloc's aim to expand carbon pricing internationally, to ensure as many countries as possible put a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Companies also say the move would avoiding competitive distortions and reduce costs for both EU and UK consumers.
Pascal Canfin, a French lawmaker in the European Parliament, said the upsides for Britain were more obvious than for the EU.
"It's a political move," said Canfin, of the EU's motivation. "The UK was within [the EU] ETS before. I mean, it's not such a big deal to have it again."
($1 = 0.7387 pounds)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
Krispy Kreme to give away free glazed doughnuts on June 6
The company wants to reclaim their title "as the OG of the glazed doughnut". Therefore, they are encouraging customers to bring 'Faux-G doughnuts' into a Krispy Kreme store, which they can "upgrade" to an original glazed doughnut for free. A "Faux-G doughnut" is defined as being a glazed doughnut from another shop that could be seen as an "inferior imitation". Customers will need to bring their "Faux-G doughnut" into a Krispy Kreme store or show proof of purchase (such as with a receipt) to claim their free original glazed doughnut on Friday, June 6. The offer will only be available for one day, with it being limited to one redemption per person. Guy Meakin, Krispy Kreme UK President, said: "They say imitation is the ultimate form of flattery, and we have seen many copies of our iconic doughnuts over the years. But we all know a dupe is rarely as good as the real thing. Nothing compares to the melt-in-your-mouth experience of a fresh Original Glazed. "This National Doughnut Day, we're inviting everyone to taste the difference and remind them that when it comes to doughnuts, there's only one OG. "We want doughnut fans to enjoy the best of the best, so turn your backs on the dupes and stick with the original. "We're excited to see the reactions as people upgrade their 'Faux-Gs' for the real deal." As part of the campaign, rapper Lady Leshurr has released her brand new single, Run This Glaze, which is a diss track playfully calling out 'imitators' of the Krispy Kreme glazed doughnuts. Lady Leshurr has released a new single called 'Run This Glaze' alongside the Krispy Kreme giveaway (Image: Will Ireland/PinPep) Is Krispy Kreme American or British? Krispy Kreme is an American company that was set up back in July 1937 by Vernon Rudolph. It started in North Carolina, seeing steady growth over the decades, with it opening its first store in the UK in October 2003. This original store was situated in the Harrods department store in London before it shut in 2011, with there now being 120 locations in the UK. Did Krispy Kreme change its name before? As part of an April Fool's Day campaign back in 2017, Krispy Kreme claimed they were going to change their name to 'Krispy Cream'. As reported by The Mirror, this was to avoid the issue of Brits not knowing whether to pronounce 'Kreme' as 'cream' or the more French-sounding 'crème'. Recommended reading: In the two years prior to this announcement, there had been over 30,000 independent tagged posts on social media spelling Krispy Kreme incorrectly. At the time, the company said after "much consideration", Krispy Kreme has taken the decision to rebrand in the UK and distance the UK franchise from its US counterpart. The Shannon Corner store in London did actually roll out a store rebrand to try and sell this, before it was eventually revealed as a joke.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Labour's defence document exposes some major cracks
However, the document itself makes no reference to it. There are important reasons for that, not least of which is the cost. But the danger and threat still lurks. It is technically credible that the UK's 30 (soon to rise to 47) F-35 multi-role fighters be fitted to carry nuclear bombs. The F-35 has that capability as does some other aircraft and there are more than 100 US-controlled gravity bombs stored in Europe stationed in several Nato countries. But the US nuclear control of the bombs would be a sticking point that deal-maker Donald Trump would not miss. Even faux British operational independence would up the cost of the F-35 option. READ MORE: Leading pro-indy figures write to Keir Starmer over referendum 'snub' An explicit endorsement of the re-introduction of tactical nuclear bombs carried aboard the F-35 multi-role fighter would signal a significant change to British nuclear policy. It would be seen by the 94 member states of the UN who support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) as a destabilising move by the UK. That includes the 73 whose sovereign legislatures have ratified it into international law and chose to abide by its terms. Indeed, the non-nuclear nations could throw sections of the SDR back in Britain's face as the document makes much of – possibly even overhypes – global insecurity – a selling point for those arms companies that received advanced copies before even the shadow defence secretary. This was revealed when Defence Secretary John Healey finally deigned to brief parliament, late in the afternoon. To openly re-introduce British tactical nukes in a document which claims that one of its key aims is to de-escalate international tension would be the equivalent of the fire brigade claiming, with a straight face, that pouring rocket fuel on a fire would help put it out. However, the prepublicity over the weekend has ensured that notion of the reintroduction of British tactical nuclear weapons is still out there, mostly likely to test the political temperature. Indeed, within the document itself, Russia is rightly criticised for retaining the possible use of tactical nukes. Looking both ways at once is not a novel idea. But even by the standards of the Starmer administration, to do so in writing in the same document would be a bit of a stretch. The military dangers of devolving a degree of command and control of nukes from the political leadership to generals of at least four-star level is fraught with risk, though most top brass are usually near their political leadership. To devolve control three steps away further to one-star level is asking for trouble. Going even further, handing control of a nuclear weapon to a lowly pilot in a cockpit is more than a bit of a gamble. Maybe the naive LibDems had not thought that through when they briefly floated the idea of replacing the clapped-out Vanguards with nuclear-capable F-35s a few years ago. For the same reason, I find it hard to believe that a group with the ear of Keir Starmer are punting an F-35 option. But maybe it is to divert attention from the increasingly clapped-out Vanguards – something, inadvertently, that the Prime Minister made mention of in his Govan shipyard speech. However, the SDR did touch upon the increasing costs of the maintenance and potential expansion of the UK's nuclear arsenal with reference to £15 billion earmarked for the 'sovereign warhead programme'. READ MORE: 'A bit rich': Kate Forbes responds to Keir Starmer ruling out referendum That it is given a title with the word 'sovereign' in it, rather than just 'warhead programme' or 'new' or 'replacement' warhead programme, suggests that recent work by the anti-nuclear movement on the fact that President Trump actually owns the Trident missiles is impacting on public perception, or risks doing so. Starmer was surely on thin ice (and some military brass must have been nervous) when the Prime Minister mentioned that during his last visit to Scotland, he was aboard a Vanguard coming off patrol. Yesterday he said that the length of the patrol was a record breaker, implying that this was something to be proud of, when in fact it was the exact opposite. The Prime Minister did not reveal the real cause of the over-lengthy deployment, though he inadvertently revealed that the Continuous At Sea Deterrent (CASD) concept is under severe strain. The deployment of Vanguards is getting longer and longer. That's because it appears there are not four boats in various states of readiness, but three, or even less. In his widely viewed Rented Missiles And Worn Out Submarines YouTube presentation, military historian Mark Felton succinctly explains why. He even speculates that at times no Vanguard has been at sea at all. Behind the SDR lurk many questions, problems and dangers. We should not let the UK Government hide them. Bill Ramsay is secretary of SNP CND and convener of the SNP Trade Union Group
The National
an hour ago
- The National
NHS must be protected from politicians who seek privatisation
They now have issues with the complexity of the tax systems. Reform UK are playing on this angst. With both of these issues visible now, Reform UK PLC are positioning themselves as the 'cutting the red tape' party. This is the party with the same leader that formed Ukip and told us that the EU was robbing us and stopping us doing what we wanted and need to do to unleash our industry, enterprise and become a global entity. This is the same party that morphed into Leave and Brexit then Reform UK. By most accounts, Brexit has been a disaster and has cost our UK economy some £100 billion each year since leaving the EU. Most people view these huge numbers as 'interesting but they don't really affect me'. What we all need to be aware of is that the Reform Party and unfortunately the UK Labour Party also have eyes on privatising the NHS, but what does this mean for us, the not-so-wealthy? First, you will need to understand the term deductible. Private health insurance is a bit like insuring your car. If you insure your car, you will be asked where you live and you will be asked what you are willing to pay out of your own pocket if you make a claim against the insurance policy. If you make a claim, the next year's premium could/probably will increase. This is a deductible. If you need heart surgery in the US, it can be $200,000 to $300,000. I have seen a quote that a UK heart operation could cost £78,000, and a new hip could cost £15,000, as examples. If you took on a deductible of 20% then you must pay this before the surgery. For a hip operation, it would be £3000 before the surgeon even starts, and you will still need to pay the monthly direct debit. For a heart operation, the deductible grows to £16,000. This is very costly for most people. This is what Nigel Farage's party, and possibly Wes Streeting of the UK Labour Party, want to implement if they get a chance. In the UK, we don't have people declaring themselves bankrupt, but the US reports 500,000 bankruptcies every year, when people cannot afford to pay the hospital bill the deductible did not cover. We need to support our NHS by not voting for parties that are intent on privatisation. Alistair Ballantyne Angus I MUST agree with John Baird's criticism of the SNP strategy (?) of trying to convince Labour voters to vote SNP in order to keep Reform out. It's misplaced effort and draws attention to Reform. Where's independence in the campaign? Has it been mentioned? This is reminiscent of Sturgeon's Brexit campaign efforts, trying to persuade the English to vote against leaving the EU. It seems the only people who talk about independence these days are the Unionists. The SNP having morphed into a devolution party, with independence only held out like a fly paper to catch voters. Too many MSPs seem comfortable with the Holyrood set-up and are unwilling to upset the apple cart. Or should that be gravy train? Drew Reid Falkirk THE letter from Jim Stamper, in Friday's National was like a breath of fresh air on the independence debate. Jim's observations and interpretations are spot on, when in relation to the petition, number PE2135 currently on the Scottish Parliament website, he points out, 'this would clearly increase the democratic rights of the people of Scotland to make decisions on how their country is run, including the rights to hold referendums'. The power to accept this petition, and to put it into Scots law, is in the hands of the Scottish Parliament. The Tories want to reject it which they have made clear, but what do the SNP and the other 'independence-supporting' MSPs intend to do? Could they possibly reject the demand to give the Scottish people their full UN human rights entitlement? If they did this to curry favour with the UK Government, could they still pretend to be independence supporters? Paddy McCarthy Beith, North Ayrshire IAIN Wilson (Letters, June 2) writes that the Scottish Parliament should prioritise debating homelessness and the NHS, over its own toilets, and I completely agree. But the 'debate' about access to toilets last month was actually questions to Christine Grahame MSP, as representative of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body (SPCB). It took less than 15 minutes, tacked on to the end of the day's other parliamentary business, at 5pm. No other business was delayed or affected at all. SPCB questions happen from time to time – they take up in total far less than 1% of parliamentary chamber time. They are the way that MSPs oversee the effective operation of the Parliament as an organisation, and especially the welfare of their staff. No business or other organisation can afford to neglect those things, and it seems reasonable, in fact necessary, to me for MSPs to spend that very small amount of time ensuring they are done properly. Tim Hopkins Edinburgh IT is whispered that Reform UK are looking for a Scottish leader. They expect to do well in the coming by-election and have high hopes for 2026 Holyrood elections. This may be exactly what Douglas Ross is up to. He has been acting up in Holyrood for a few months now. Getting his face out there? John Dunn via
