1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
  4. Volume 47, 2022
  5. Article

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 47, 2022

Carbon Leakage, Consumption, and Trade

Abstract

We review the state of knowledge concerning international CO emission transfers associated particularly with trade in energy-intensive goods and concerns about carbon leakage arising from climate policies. The historical increase in aggregate emission transfers from developing to developed countries peaked around 2006 and declined since. Studies find no evidence that climate policies lead to carbon leakage, but this is partly due to shielding of key industrial sectors, which is incompatible with deep decarbonization. Alternative or complementary consumption-based approaches areneeded. Private sector initiatives to trace and address carbon emissions throughout supply chains have grown substantially but cannot compensate for inadequate policy. Three main price-based approaches to tackling carbon leakage are potentially compatible with international trade rules: border adjustments on imports, carbon consumption charges, and climate excise contributions combined with emissions trading. We also consider standards and public procurement options to tackle embodied emissions. Finally, we discuss proposals for carbon clubs involving cooperation among a limited set of countries.

Keyword(s): carbon leakage, climate clubs, climate policy, consumption, embodied emissions, equity, industrial decarbonization, international trade
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-120820-053625
2022-10-17
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/47/1/annurev-environ-120820-053625.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-120820-053625&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Hertwich EG. 2020. Carbon fueling complex global value chains tripled in the period 1995–2012. Energy Econ 86:104651
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Helm D. 2015. The Carbon Crunch New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. , 2nd ed..
  3. 3.
    Smil V. 2013. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization Chichester, UK: Wiley
  4. 4.
    Birgisdóttir H. 2021. Why building regulations must incorporate embodied carbon. Buildings & Cities Oct. 30. https://www.buildingsandcities.org/insights/commentaries/building-regulations-embodied-carbon.html
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change) 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty V Masson-Delmotte, P Zhai, HO Pörtner, D Roberts, J Skea et al. Geneva: IPCC
  6. 6.
    Grubb M, Crawford-Brown D, Neuhoff K, Schanes K, Hawkins S, Poncia A. 2020. Consumption-oriented policy instruments for fostering greenhouse gas mitigation. Clim. Policy 20:Suppl. 1S58–73
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Das Kasturi 2021. The role of trade in climate action. One Earth 4:5615–17
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    Boverket 2022. Questions and answers about climate declarations -Boverket. https://perma.cc/RY77-HVWL
  9. 9.
    Lamb WF, Grubb M, Diluiso F, Minx JC. 2022. Countries with sustained greenhouse gas emissions reductions: an analysis of trends and progress by sector. Clim. Policy 22:11–17
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Wang R, Assenova VA, Hertwich EG. 2021. Energy system decarbonization and productivity gains reduced the coupling of CO2 emissions and economic growth in 73 countries between 1970 and 2016. One Earth 4:111614–24
     [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    Jiborn M, Kander A, Kulionis V, Nielsen H, Moran DD. 2018. Decoupling or delusion? Measuring emissions displacement in foreign trade. Glob. Environ. Change 49:27–34
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    Steininger K, Lininger C, Droege S, Roser D, Tomlinson L, Meyer L. 2014. Justice and cost effectiveness of consumption-based versus production-based approaches in the case of unilateral climate policies. Glob. Environ. Change 24:175–87
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Kander A, Jiborn M, Moran DD, Wiedmann TO. 2015. National greenhouse-gas accounting for effective climate policy on international trade. Nat. Clim. Change 5:5431–35
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Hertwich EG, Peters GP. 2009. Carbon footprint of nations: a global, trade-linked analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43:166414–20
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    Ye Q, Hertwich EG, Krol MS, Vivanco DF, Lounsbury AW et al. 2021. Linking the environmental pressures of China's capital development to global final consumption of the past decades and into the future. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55:96421–29
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Dietzenbacher E, Cazcarro I, Arto I. 2020. Towards a more effective climate policy on international trade. Nat. Commun. 11:11130
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Rodrigues JFD, Moran D, Wood R, Behrens P. 2018. Uncertainty of consumption-based carbon accounts. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52:137577–86
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Wood R, Grubb M, Anger-Kraavi A, Pollitt H, Rizzo B et al. 2020. Beyond peak emission transfers: historical impacts of globalization and future impacts of climate policies on international emission transfers. Clim. Policy 20:Suppl. 1S14–27
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Grubb M, Sha F, Spencer T, Hughes N, Zhang Z, Agnolucci P. 2015. A review of Chinese CO2 emission projections to 2030: the role of economic structure and policy. Clim. Policy 15:Suppl. 1S7–39
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Nielsen T, Baumert N, Kander A, Jiborn M, Kulionis V. 2020. The risk of carbon leakage in global climate agreements. Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 21:2147–63
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Friedlingstein P, O'Sullivan M, Jones MW, Andrew RM, Hauck J et al. 2020. Global Carbon Budget 2020. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12:43269–340
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Wood R, Neuhoff K, Moran D, Simas M, Grubb M, Stadler K. 2020. The structure, drivers and policy implications of the European carbon footprint. Clim. Policy 20:Suppl. 1S39–57
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    IEA (Int. Energy Agency) 2021. Net zero by 2050 Rep. IEA Paris:
  24. 24.
    Sato M, Neuhoff K, Graichen V, Schumacher K, Matthes F. 2014. Sectors under scrutiny: evaluation of indicators to assess the risk of carbon leakage in the UK and Germany. Environ. Resour. Econ. 60:199–124
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Ivanova D, Wood R. 2020. The unequal distribution of household carbon footprints in Europe and its link to sustainability. Glob. Sustain. 3:e18
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Chancel L, Piketty T. 2015. Carbon and inequality: from Kyoto to Paris. Trends in the global inequality of carbon emissions (1998–2013) & prospects for an equitable adaptation fund. Work. Pap. 2015/7 World Inequal. Database, World Inequal. Lab Paris:
  27. 27.
    Hubacek K, Baiocchi G, Feng K, Patwardhan A. 2017. Poverty eradication in a carbon constrained world. Nat. Commun. 8:1912
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Caron J, Rausch S, Winchester N. 2015. Leakage from sub-national climate policy: the case of California's cap–and–trade program. Energy J 36:2167–90
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Grubb M, Hourcade J-C, Neuhoff K. 2014. Planetary Economics: Energy, Climate Change and the Three Domains of Sustainable Development London: Routledge
  30. 30.
    Pethig R. 1976. Pollution, welfare, and environmental policy in the theory of Comparative Advantage. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2:3160–69
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Brunel C. 2017. Pollution offshoring and emission reductions in EU and US manufacturing. Environ. Resour. Econ. 68:3621–41
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Koch N, Basse Mama H 2019. Does the EU Emissions Trading System induce investment leakage? Evidence from German multinational firms. Energy Econ 81:479–92
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Borghesi S, Franco C, Marin G. 2020. Outward foreign direct investment patterns of Italian firms in the European Union's Emission Trading Scheme. Scand. J. Econ. 122:1219–56
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Caron J 2022. Empirical evidence and projections of carbon leakage: some, but not too much, probably. Handbook on Trade Policy and Climate Change M Jakob 58–75 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Naegele H, Zaklan A. 2019. Does the EU ETS cause carbon leakage in European manufacturing?. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 93:125–47
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Verde S. 2020. The impact of the EU emissions trading system on competitiveness and carbon leakage: the econometric evidence. J. Econ. Surv. 34:2320–43
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Martin R, Muûls M, de Preux LB, Wagner UJ. 2014. Industry compensation under relocation risk: a firm-level analysis of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Am. Econ. Rev. 104:2482–508
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Neuhoff K, Ritz R. 2019. Carbon cost pass-through in industrial sectors Energy Policy Res. Group Pap. 1935/Cambridge Work. Pap. Econ. 1988 Univ. Cambridge Cambridge, UK:
  39. 39.
    Hintermann B, Zarkovic M, Di Maria C, Wagner UJ. 2020. The effect of climate policy on productivity and cost pass-through in the German manufacturing sector Work. Pap. 2020/11 Bus. Econ., Univ. Basel Basel, Switz:.
  40. 40.
    Fowlie ML. 2009. Incomplete environmental regulation, imperfect competition, and emissions leakage. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 1:272–112
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Sijm JPM, Neuhoff K, Chen Y. 2006. CO2 cost pass-through and windfall profits in the power sector. Clim. Policy 6:149–72
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Fabra N, Reguant M. 2014. Pass-through of emissions costs in electricity markets. Am. Econ. Rev. 104:92872–99
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Park H, Hong WK. 2014. Korea's emission trading scheme and policy design issues to achieve market-efficiency and abatement targets. Energy Policy 75:73–83
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Fowlie ML, Reguant M. 2022. Mitigating emissions leakage in incomplete carbon markets. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 9:2307–43
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Carbon Trust 2008. Cutting carbon in Europe: the 2020 plans and the future of the EU ETS Rep., Carbon Trust London:
  46. 46.
    Sato M, Rafaty R, Calel R, Grubb M. 2022. Allocation, allocation, allocation! The political economy of the development of the EU ETS. WIREs Clim. Change. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/115431 . In press
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Grubb M, Drummond P, Poncia A, McDowall W, Popp D et al. 2021. Induced innovation in energy technologies and systems: a review of evidence and potential implications for CO2 mitigation. Environ. Res. Lett. 16:4043007
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change) 2022. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change PR Shukla, J Skea, R Slade, A Al Khourdajie, R van Diemen et al. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  49. 49.
    Hertwich EG, Wood R. 2018. The growing importance of Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions from industry. Environ. Res. Lett. 13:10104013
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Kareiva PM, McNally BW, McCormick S, Miller T, Ruckelshaus M. 2015. Improving global environmental management with standard corporate reporting. PNAS 112:247375–82
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Böhringer C, Bye B, Fæhn T, Rosendahl KE. 2017. Targeted carbon tariffs: export response, leakage and welfare. Resour. Energy Econ. 50:51–73
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Tagliapietra S, Wolff GB. 2021. Form a climate club: United States, European Union and China. Nature 591:7851526–28
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    McAusland C, Najjar N. 2015. Carbon footprint taxes. Environ. Resour. Econ. 61:137–70
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    ISO (Int. Organ. Stand.) 2018. Greenhouse gases—carbon footprint of products—requirements and guidelines for quantification Pap. ISO 14067:2018 ISO Geneva, Switz:.
  55. 55.
    Passer A, Lasvaux S, Allacker K, De Lathauwer D, Spirinckx C et al. 2015. Environmental product declarations entering the building sector: critical reflections based on 5 to 10 years experience in different European countries. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20:91199–1212
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    van der Ven H, Bernstein S, Hoffmann M. 2017. Valuing the contributions of nonstate and subnational actors to climate governance. Glob. Environ. Polit. 17:11–20
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Afionis S, Sakai M, Scott K, Barrett J, Gouldson A. 2017. Consumption-based carbon accounting: does it have a future?. WIREs Clim. Change 8:1e438
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Lehne J, Preston F. 2018. Making Concrete Change. Innovation in Low-Carbon Cement and Concrete London: Chatham House
  59. 59.
    Hunsager EA, Bach M, Breuer L. 2014. An institutional analysis of EPD programs and a global PCR registry. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19:4786–95
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    Jordan ND, Bleischwitz R. 2020. Legitimating the governance of embodied emissions as a building block for sustainable energy transitions. Glob. Transit. 2:37–46
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.
    Liu T, Wang Q, Su B 2016. A review of carbon labeling: standards, implementation, and impact. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 53:68–79
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Zhao R, Wu D, Patti S 2020. A bibliometric analysis of carbon labeling schemes in the period 2007–2019. Energies 13:164233
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    Toniolo S, Mazzi A, Simonetto M, Zuliani F, Scipioni A. 2019. Mapping diffusion of Environmental Product Declarations released by European program operators. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 17:85–94
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Jordan ND. 2021. How coordinated sectoral responses to environmental policy increase the availability of product life cycle data. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 26:692–706
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Hu AH, Lan Y-C, Chien Hung K, Chen C-H, Hong M-Y, Kuo C-H 2019. Carbon-labeling implementation in Taiwan by combining strength–weakness–opportunity–threat and analytic network processes. Environ. Eng. Sci. 36:5541–50
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Greenhouse Gas Protocol 2004. A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. Revised Edition Washington, DC: World Resour. Inst./Geneva: World Bus. Counc. Sustain. Dev.
  67. 67.
    World Resour. Inst 2021. Methodology. World Resource Institute. https://www.wri.org/sustainability-wri/dashboard/methodology
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    BSR (Bus. Soc. Responsib.) 2020. Climate action in the value chain: reducing Scope 3 emissions and achieving science-based targets. Rep. BSR San Francisco:
  69. 69.
    Shrimali G. 2021. Scope 3 emissions: measurement and management Work. Pap., Sustain. Finance Initiat., Precourt Inst. Energy, Stanford Univ. Stanford, CA:
  70. 70.
    Cannon C, Greene S, Blank TK, Lee J, Natali P. 2020. The next frontier of carbon accounting: a unified approach for unlocking systemic change Rep., RMI Basalt, CO:
  71. 71.
    Dietz S, Bienkowska B, Gardiner D, Hastreiter N, Jahn V et al. 2020. TPI state of transition report 2020 Rep., Transit. Pathw. Initiat. London:
  72. 72.
    Greenh. Gas Protoc 2018. Life Cycle Databases. Greenhouse Gas Protocol https://ghgprotocol.org/life-cycle-databases
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    Greenhouse Gas Protocol 2011. Corporate value chain (Scope 3) accounting and reporting standard: supplement to the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard Rep., World Resour. Inst., Washington, DC/World Bus. Counc. Sustain. Dev Geneva:
  74. 74.
    Bahn-Walkowiak B, Magrini C, Berg H, Göński B, Beck-O'Brien M et al. 2020. Eco-innovation and digitalisation. Case studies, environmental and policy lessons from EU member states for the EU Green Deal and the circular economy Rep., Eco-Innov. Observ., Eur. Comm Brussels, Belg:.
  75. 75.
    Lubin DA, Esty DC. 2010. The sustainability imperative. Harvard Business Review May. https://hbr.org/2010/05/the-sustainability-imperative
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Nidumolu R, Prahalad CK, Rangaswami MR. 2009. Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review September. https://hbr.org/2009/09/why-sustainability-is-now-the-key-driver-of-innovation
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Serafeim G. 2021. ESG: hyperboles and reality Work. Pap. 22–031 Harv. Bus. Sch., Harv. Univ. Cambridge, MA:
  78. 78.
    TCFD (Task Force Clim.-Relat. Financ. Discl.) 2017. Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures Rep. TCFD Basel, Switz:.
  79. 79.
    Secur. Exch. Comm 2022. The enhancement and standardization of climate-related disclosures for investors Fed. Reg. 876921334 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-04-11/pdf/2022-06342.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Mehling MA, Van Asselt H, Das K, Droege S, Verkuijl C. 2019. Designing border carbon adjustments for enhanced climate action. Am. J. Int. Law 113:3433–81
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Goulder LH, Parry IWH. 2008. Instrument choice in environmental policy. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2:2152–74
     [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Branger F, Quirion P, Chevallier J. 2016. Carbon leakage and competitiveness of cement and steel industries under the EU ETS: much ado about nothing. Energy J 37:3109–35
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    Böhringer C, Rosendahl KE, Storrøsten HB. 2017. Robust policies to mitigate carbon leakage. J. Public Econ. 149:35–46
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Neuhoff K, Martinez KK, Sato M. 2006. Allocation, incentives and distortions: the impact of EU ETS emissions allowance allocations to the electricity sector. Clim. Policy 6:173–91
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Fischer C, Fox AK. 2011. The role of trade and competitiveness measures in US climate policy. Am. Econ. Rev. 101:3258–62
     [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    Carbon Trust 2010. Tackling carbon leakage: sector-specific solutions for a world of unequal prices Rep. Carbon Trust London:
  87. 87.
    Anger N, Asane-Otoo E, Böhringer C, Oberndorfer U. 2016. Public interest versus interest groups: a political economy analysis of allowance allocation under the EU emissions trading scheme. Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 16:5621–38
     [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    Burtraw D, McCormack K. 2017. Consignment auctions of free emissions allowances. Energy Policy 107:337–44
     [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Rubini L, Jegou I. 2012. Who'll stop the rain? Allocating emissions allowances for free: environmental policy, economics, and WTO subsidy law. Transnatl. Environ. Law 1:2325–54
     [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    Droege S, van Asselt H, Das K, Mehling M. 2017. The trade system and climate action: ways forward under the Paris Agreement. South Carolina J. Int. Law Bus. 13:2195–276
     [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.
    Stede J, Pauliuk S, Hardadi G, Neuhoff K. 2021. Carbon pricing of basic materials: incentives and risks for the value chain and consumers. Ecol. Econ. 189:107168
     [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    Le Den X, Fallmann H, Görlach B, Ismer R, Neuhoff K et al. 2021. Study on the possibility to set up a carbon border adjustment mechanism on selected sectors: final report Rep. Eur. Comm. Brussels, Belg:.
  93. 93.
    Mattoo A, Subramanian A, van der Mensbrugghe D, He J. 2013. Trade effects of alternative carbon border-tax schemes. Rev. World Econ. 149:3587–609
     [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.
    Ismer R, Neuhoff K. 2007. Border tax adjustment: a feasible way to support stringent emission trading. Eur. J. Law Econ. 24:2137–64
     [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.
    Tamiotti L. 2011. The legal interface between carbon border measures and trade rules. Clim. Policy 11:51202–11
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    Pauwelyn J 2013. Carbon leakage measures and border tax adjustments under WTO law. Research Handbook on Environment, Health and the WTO G Van Calster, D Prévost 448–506 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    Holzer K. 2014. Carbon-Related Border Adjustment and WTO Law Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
  98. 98.
    Cosbey A, Droege S, Fischer C, Munnings C. 2019. Developing guidance for implementing border carbon adjustments: lessons, cautions, and research needs from the literature. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 13:13–22
     [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.
    Porterfield M. 2019. Border adjustments for carbon taxes, PPMs, and the WTO. Univ. . Pa. J. Int. Law 41:11–42
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.
    Monjon S, Quirion P. 2011. A border adjustment for the EU ETS: reconciling WTO rules and capacity to tackle carbon leakage. Clim. Policy 11:51212–25
     [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.
    Branger F, Quirion P. 2014. Would border carbon adjustments prevent carbon leakage and heavy industry competitiveness losses? Insights from a meta-analysis of recent economic studies. Ecol. Econ. 99:29–39
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.
    Bushnell J, Peterman C, Wolfram C 2008. Local solutions to global problems: climate change policies and regulatory jurisdiction. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2:2175–93
     [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.
    Kortum S, Weisbach D. 2017. The design of border adjustments for carbon prices. Natl. Tax J. 70:2421–46
     [Google Scholar]
  104. 104.
    Böhringer C, Balistreri EJ, Rutherford TF. 2012. The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: overview of an Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF 29). Energy Econ 34:S97–110
     [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.
    European Commission 2021. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a border carbon adjustment mechanism July 14 . Eur. Comm. Doc. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/carbon_border_adjustment_mechanism_0.pdf
  106. 106.
    Kopp RJ, Pizer WA, Rennert K. 2022. Industrial decarbonization and competitiveness: a domestic benchmark intensity approach Issue Brief 22-03 Resour. Future Washington, DC:
  107. 107.
    Xu Q, Hobbs BF. 2021. Economic efficiency of alternative border carbon adjustment schemes: a case study of California carbon pricing and the Western North American power market. Energy Policy 156:112463
     [Google Scholar]
  108. 108.
    Mayr S, Hollaus B, Madner V. 2021. Palm oil, the RED II and WTO law: EU sustainable biofuel policy tangled up in green?. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law. 30:2233–48
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 109.
    Bruyn SM, Koopman MJ, Vergeer R. 2015. Carbon Added Tax as an alternative climate policy instrument Rep. CE Delft Delft, Neth:.
  110. 110.
    Holovko I, Marian A, Apergi M 2021. The role of the EU CBAM in raising climate policy ambition in trade partners: the case of Ukraine Rep. Inst. Adv. Sustain. Stud. Potsdam, Ger:.
  111. 111.
    Fuso Nerini F, Fawcett T, Parag Y, Ekins P 2021. Personal carbon allowances revisited. Nat. Sustain. 4:121025–31
     [Google Scholar]
  112. 112.
    Haussner MW. 2021. Including Consumption in Emissions Trading: Economic and Legal Considerations Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
  113. 113.
    Ismer R, Haussner M. 2016. Inclusion of consumption into the EU ETS: the legal basis under European Union law. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 25:169–80
     [Google Scholar]
  114. 114.
    Ismer R, van Asselt H, Haverkamp J, Mehling M, Neuhoff K, Pirlot A. 2021. Climate neutral production, free allocation of allowances under emissions trading systems, and the WTO: how to secure compatibility with the ASCM Discuss. Pap., DIW Berlin Berlin, Ger:.
  115. 115.
    van Renssen S. 2020. The hydrogen solution?. Nat. Clim. Change 10:9799–801
     [Google Scholar]
  116. 116.
    Neuhoff K, Ismer R, Acworth W, Ancygier A, Fischer C et al. 2016. Inclusion of Consumption of carbon intensive materials in emissions trading—an option for carbon pricing post-2020 Rep. Clim. Strateg. London:
  117. 117.
    Chiappinelli O, Gerres T, Neuhoff K, Lettow F, de Coninck H et al. 2021. A green COVID-19 recovery of the EU basic materials sector: identifying potentials, barriers and policy solutions. Clim. Policy 21:101328–46
     [Google Scholar]
  118. 118.
    Gerres T, Haussner M, Neuhoff K, Pirlot A. 2021. To ban or not to ban carbon-intensive materials: a legal and administrative assessment of product carbon requirements. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 30:2249–62
     [Google Scholar]
  119. 119.
    Zizzo R, Kyriazis J, Goodland H. 2017. Embodied carbon of buildings and infrastructure: international policy review Rep. For. Innov. Invest. Vancouver, BC, Can:.
     [Google Scholar]
  120. 120.
    C40 Cities, Arup, Univ. Leeds 2019. Building and infrastructure consumption emissions: in focus Rep. C40 Cities, Arup Univ. Leeds:
  121. 121.
    UK Clim. Change Comm 2020. Briefing document: the potential of product standards to address industrial emissions Rep. UK Clim. Change Comm. London:
  122. 122.
    Kurmayer NJ. 2021. EU to start measuring ‘embodied’ carbon emissions from buildings. Euractiv Nov. 30. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/eu-to-start-measuring-embodied-carbon-emissions-from-buildings/
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 123.
    Aecom 2019. Options for incorporating embodied and sequestered carbon into the building standards framework Rep. Aecom Comm. Clim. Change London:
  124. 124.
    Freeman H, Christie L 2021. Reducing the whole life carbon impact of buildings Rep. UK Parliam. London:
  125. 125.
    Ministère de la Transition écologique 2022. Réglementation environnementale RE2020. GOUVERNEMENT Aug. 12. https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/reglementation-environnementale-re2020
    [Google Scholar]
  126. 126.
    Dan. Hous. Plann. Auth., ed 2021. National Strategy for Sustainable Construction Copenhagen: Minist. Inter. Hous.
  127. 127.
    Pomponi F, Giesekam J, Hart J, D'Amico B. 2020. Embodied carbon: status quo and suggested roadmap Rep. JH Sustain. Edinburgh, UK:
  128. 128.
    Varriale F. 2021. The other side of the coin: understanding embodied carbon. RICS World Built Environment Forum May 27. https://www.rics.org/uk/wbef/megatrends/natural-environment/the-other-side-of-the-coin-understanding-embodied-carbon/
    [Google Scholar]
  129. 129.
    Teshnizi Z. 2019. Policy research on reducing the embodied emissions of new buildings in Vancouver. Rep. Zera Solut. London:
  130. 130.
    European Commission 2021. Questions and answers on the revision of the energy performance of buildings directive. European Commission Press Corner Dec. 15. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_21_6686
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 131.
    Ürge-Vorsatz D, Khosla R, Bernhardt R, Chan YC, Vérez D et al. 2020. Advances toward a net-zero global building sector. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 45:227–69
     [Google Scholar]
  132. 132.
    Harvey LDD. 2013. Recent advances in sustainable buildings: review of the energy and cost performance of the state-of-the-art best practices from around the world. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 38:281–309
     [Google Scholar]
  133. 133.
    World Green Building Council 2019. Bringing embodied carbon upfront. Coordinated action for the building and construction sector to tackle embodied carbon Rep. World Green. Build. Counc. London:
  134. 134.
    European Political Strategy Centre 2016. Towards low-emission mobility: driving the modernisation of the EU economy EPSC Strateg. Notes, Eur. Polit. Strateg. Cent., Eur. Comm. Brussels, Belg:.
  135. 135.
    Jordan N, Butnar I, Grubb M, Sato M. 2022.. Joint response by climate policy experts from UCL and LSE to BEIS Call for Evidence: towards a market for low emissions industrial products Febr. 28. UCL Doc. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/public-policy/sites/public_policy/files/ucl_lse_climate_experts_response_beis_call4evidence_low_emissions_products_2022.pdf
  136. 136.
    Vogl V, Åhman M, Nilsson LJ. 2020. The making of green steel in the EU: a policy evaluation for the early commercialization phase. Clim. Policy 21:178–92
     [Google Scholar]
  137. 137.
    Calif. State Gov. Dep. Gen. Serv. Procur. Div 2021. Buy Clean California Act CA.gov July 20. https://perma.cc/M556-8GK8
  138. 138.
    State of Colorado 2021. House Bill 21–1303: Concerning Measures to Limit the Global Warming Potential for Certain Materials Used in Public Projects, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation Denver: State Colo https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021A/bills/2021a_1303_enr.pdf
  139. 139.
    Rempher A, Olgyay V. 2021. Colorado passes embodied carbon legislation. RMI July 20. https://rmi.org/colorado-passes-embodied-carbon-legislation/
    [Google Scholar]
  140. 140.
    Dunford E, Niven R, Neidl C 2021. Deploying low carbon public procurement to accelerate carbon removal. Front. Clim. 3:686787
     [Google Scholar]
  141. 141.
    Shepardson D. 2022. Biden to launch “Buy Clean” U.S. government task force. Reuters Febr. 15. https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/biden-launch-buy-clean-us-government-task-force-2022-02-15/
    [Google Scholar]
  142. 142.
    Nilsson LJ, Bauer F, Åhman M, Andersson FNG, Bataille C et al. 2021. An industrial policy framework for transforming energy and emissions intensive industries towards zero emissions. Clim. Policy 21:81053–65
     [Google Scholar]
  143. 143.
    Mehling MA, Ritz RA. 2020. Going beyond default intensities in an EU carbon border adjustment mechanism Work. Pap. 2026 Energy Policy Res. Group, Univ. Cambridge Cambridge, UK:
  144. 144.
    Cullenward D, Victor DG. 2020. Making Climate Policy Work Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
  145. 145.
    Sayegh AG. 2019. Pricing carbon for climate justice. Ethics Policy Environ 22:2109–30
     [Google Scholar]
  146. 146.
    Shue H. 2019. Subsistence protection and mitigation ambition: necessities, economic and climatic. Br. J. Polit. Int. Relat. 21:2251–62
     [Google Scholar]
  147. 147.
    Meyer LH, Roser D 2009. Enough for the future. Intergenerational Justice A Gosseries, LH Meyer 219–48 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  148. 148.
    Dooley K, Holz C, Kartha S, Klinsky S, Roberts JT et al. 2021. Ethical choices behind quantifications of fair contributions under the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 11:4300–5
     [Google Scholar]
  149. 149.
    Taconet N, Méjean A, Guivarch C. 2020. Influence of climate change impacts and mitigation costs on inequality between countries. Clim. Change 160:115–34
     [Google Scholar]
  150. 150.
    Lenzi D, Jakob M, Honegger M, Droege S, Heyward JC, Kruger T. 2021. Equity implications of net zero visions. Clim. Change 169:320
     [Google Scholar]
  151. 151.
    Depledge J. 2005. Against the grain: the United States and the global climate change regime. Glob. Change Peace Secur. 17:111–27
     [Google Scholar]
  152. 152.
    Das K, van Asselt H, Droege S, Mehling M. 2019. Towards a trade regime that works for the Paris agreement. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 54:5025–30
     [Google Scholar]
  153. 153.
    Khan M. 2015. Polluter-pays-principle: the cardinal instrument for addressing climate change. Laws 4:638–53
     [Google Scholar]
  154. 154.
    Klinsky S, Roberts T, Huq S, Okereke C, Newell P et al. 2016. Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research. Glob. Environ. Change 44:170–73
     [Google Scholar]
  155. 155.
    Gardiner S 2011. Is no one responsible for global environmental tragedy? Climate change as a challenge to our ethical concepts. Ethics and Global Climate Change D Arnold 38–59 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  156. 156.
    Böhringer C, Carbone JC, Rutherford TF. 2016. The strategic value of carbon tariffs. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 8:128–51
     [Google Scholar]
  157. 157.
    Böhringer C, Schneider J, Asane-Otoo E. 2021. Trade in carbon and carbon tariffs. Environ. Resour. Econ. 78:669–708
     [Google Scholar]
  158. 158.
    Maratou A. 2021. Preliminary study on the impact of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) on Thailand, India, and Vietnam Stud., Eur. Roundtable Clim. Change Sustain. Transit. Brussels, Belg:.
  159. 159.
    UNCTAD (UN Conf. Trade Dev.) 2021. A European union carbon border adjustment mechanism: implications for developing countries. Rep. UN Conf. Trade Dev. Geneva:
  160. 160.
    Aylor B, Gilbert M, Lang N, McAdoo M, Öberg J et al. 2020. How an EU carbon border tax could jolt world trade. BCG June 30. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/how-an-eu-carbon-border-tax-could-jolt-world-trade
    [Google Scholar]
  161. 161.
    Das K. 2015. Climate clubs: carrots, sticks and more. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 50:3424–27
     [Google Scholar]
  162. 162.
    Das K. 2011. Can border carbon adjustments be WTO-legal. Manch. J. Int. Econ. 8:365–97
     [Google Scholar]
  163. 163.
    Pollitt H, Neuhoff K, Lin X. 2020. The impact of implementing a consumption charge on carbon-intensive materials in Europe. Clim. Policy 20:Supp1. 1S74–89
     [Google Scholar]
  164. 164.
    Holmes P, Reilly T, Rollo J 2011. Border carbon adjustments and the potential for protectionism. Clim. Policy 11:2883–900
     [Google Scholar]
  165. 165.
    Dominioni G, Esty DC. 2022. Designing effective border-carbon adjustment mechanisms: aligning the global trade and climate change regimes. Ariz. Law Rev. 65:1 http://www.law.arizona.edu/Journals/ALR/. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  166. 166.
    Das K, Ranjan Bandyopadhyay K 2016. Climate change and clean energy in the 2030 agenda: what role for the trade system?. Tralac Nov. 3. https://www.tralac.org/news/article/10767-climate-change-and-clean-energy-in-the-2030-agenda-what-role-for-the-trade-system.html
    [Google Scholar]
  167. 167.
    Grubb M. 2011. International climate finance from border carbon cost levelling. Clim. Policy 11:31050–57
     [Google Scholar]
  168. 168.
    Dadwal SR. 2010. Energy-related border trade measures: Can they lead to trade wars?. Strateg. Anal. 34:6872–84
     [Google Scholar]
  169. 169.
    Fouré J, Guimbard H, Monjon S. 2016. Border carbon adjustment and trade retaliation: What would be the cost for the European Union?. Energy Econ 54:349–62
     [Google Scholar]
  170. 170.
    Eckersley R. 2010. The politics of carbon leakage and the fairness of border measures. Ethics Int. Aff. 24:4367–93
     [Google Scholar]
  171. 171.
    Vihma A, van Asselt H. 2014. The conflict over aviation emissions: a case of retreating EU leadership? Brief. Pap. 150 Finn. Inst. Int. Aff. Helsinki:
  172. 172.
    Gläser A, Caspar O 2021. Less confrontation, more cooperation: increasing acceptability of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment in key trade partners Policy Brief Germanwatch, Berlin:
  173. 173.
    van den Bergh JCJM, Angelsen A, Baranzini A, Botzen WJW, Carattini S et al. 2020. A dual-track transition to global carbon pricing. Clim. Policy 20:91057–69
     [Google Scholar]
  174. 174.
    Haites E. 2020. A dual-track transition to global carbon pricing: nice idea, but doomed to fail. Clim. Policy 20101344–48
  175. 175.
    Belis D, Joffe P, Kerremans B, Qi Y. 2015. China, the United States and the European Union: multiple bilateralism and prospects for a new climate change diplomacy. Clim. Change Law Rev. 9:3203–18
     [Google Scholar]
  176. 176.
    Nordhaus W. 2015. Climate clubs: overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. Am. Econ. Rev. 105:41339–70
     [Google Scholar]
  177. 177.
    Krukowska E, Shankleman J. 2020. Europe's carbon border levy may be avoided, climate chief says. Bloomberg Green Nov. 16. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-16/growing-climate-momentum-may-limit-use-of-eu-carbon-border-levy
    [Google Scholar]
  178. 178.
    Barrett S, Dannenberg A. 2019. Coercive trade agreements for supplying global public goods. Work. Pap. 3 Cent. Environ. Econ. Policy, Columbia Univ. New York:
  179. 179.
    Paroussos L, Mandel A, Fragkiadakis K, Fragkos P, Hinkel J, Vrontisi Z. 2019. Climate clubs and the macro-economic benefits of international cooperation on climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 9:542–46
     [Google Scholar]
  180. 180.
    Al Khourdajie A, Finus M 2020. Measures to enhance the effectiveness of international climate agreements: the case of border carbon adjustments. Eur. Econ. Rev. 124:103405
     [Google Scholar]
  181. 181.
    Tulkens H. 2019. Economics, Game Theory and International Environmental Agreements: The Ca’ Foscari Lectures Singapore: World Scientific Publ.
  182. 182.
    Tagliapietra S, Wolff GB. 2021. Conditions are ideal for a new climate club. Energy Policy 158:112527
     [Google Scholar]
  183. 183.
    Potoski M. 2015. Green clubs in building block climate change regimes. Clim. Change 144:153–63
     [Google Scholar]
  184. 184.
    Arcese E, McDonald J. 2016. Multijurisdictional approaches to carbon pricing: integrating design elements for a low carbon club Workshop Rep. Stanley Found. Muscatine, IA:
  185. 185.
    Rocchi P, Serrano M, Roca J, Arto I. 2018. Border carbon adjustments based on avoided emissions: addressing the challenge of its design. Ecol. Econ. 145:126–36
     [Google Scholar]
  186. 186.
    Narassimhan E, Koester S, Gallagher KS. 2022. Carbon pricing in the US: examining state-level policy support and federal resistance. Polit. Gov. 10:1275–89
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-120820-053625
Loading
Carbon Leakage, Consumption, and Trade
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 47, 753 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-120820-053625
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-120820-053625
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-120820-053625
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error