
Displaying items by tag: Carbon trading
China to include cement industry in national carbon trading market
10 September 2024China: China plans to expand its national carbon trading market to encompass the cement industry by the end of 2024, Bloomberg reports. This initiative, announced by Minister of Ecology and Environment Huang Runqiu, aims to reduce emissions in high-pollution sectors and prepare for the EU’s impending carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) starting in 2026. Currently limited to 2200 power utilities, the expansion will integrate seven more sectors into the market, which China hopes will cover 70% of its emissions by 2030. The Ministry is reportedly seeking public feedback on the proposal until 19 September 2024.
EU prohibits products’ climate claims based on offsetting
20 September 2023Europe: The Environmental Coalition on Standards (ECOS) has welcomed the EU’s new Empowering Consumers Directive. Under the directive, EU member states must enact laws preventing companies from labelling their products with climate claims based on offsetting. ECOS called the law a ‘significant measure against greenwashing.’ It called on the EU to further ensure that products neither rely on carbon credits, nor on contributions to sustainability projects, in calculating their impacts.
ECOS programme manager Elisa Martellucci said “The EU has taken aim at greenwashing. Climate neutrality claims based only on carbon offsetting are ambiguous and misleading for consumers because they are not linked to concrete efforts to combat the climate crisis. Instead, they rely on flawed carbon accounting practices that ‘write off’ greenhouse gas emissions. The amazing carbon emissions vanishing act is many companies’ dream – but emissions do not magically disappear. Policymakers have taken a strong stance against this deceptive practice.”
Europe: The European cement association Cembureau has expressed its disappointment in the outcome of European Parliament votes on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The parliament voted against an amended proposal to introduce a carbon border tax and to phase out ETS allowances from 2028 to 2034, against a previous proposal of 2025 – 2030. Groups including The Greens – European Free Alliance voted against the proposed legislation as they believed it did not go far enough.
Cembureau chief executive officer Koen Coppenholle said “The EU cement industry needs a strong CBAM to support our decarbonisation efforts and fight carbon leakage. Both draft European Parliament texts on ETS and CBAM contain significant improvements on some key issues – such as CBAM’s watertightness or industrial innovation – which are essential to support our transition to carbon neutrality.” Coppenholle continued “We encourage MEPs to resume negotiations as soon as possible and reach a reasonable compromise on the remaining divisive issues, thereby providing a predictable regulatory framework for the industry.”
CO2 credits could account for 12 – 15% of EU cement producers’ costs
16 December 2021Europe: Cembureau, the European cement association, has calculated that if the European Union (UN) emissions trading scheme (ETS) CO2 cost reaches Euro90/t then this could represent 12 - 15% of the production costs of cement producers. The association made its calculation for an average cement plant in the region using data from Ecorys, WIFO, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research for the EU Commission and Agora Energiewende.
Cembureau has called for the EU government to delay its proposed ETS free allocation phase-out and to bring forward the implementation of its proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) from 2026. It has called on policy makers to ‘use all the tools available to stabilise market prices, support energy intensive industries through state aid and examine the functioning of the European gas and electricity markets, as well as the EU ETS.’
Update on China, September 2021
01 September 2021It’s time for a macroscopic view of the Chinese cement sector this week with the release of the half-year financial results by some of the larger Chinese cement producers. On the national level the picture so far in 2021 has been one of continued recovery from the coronavirus lockdowns at the start of the year and then a slowing market as state controls on real estate speculation started to take effect. However, poor weather in the spring and mounting raw material prices appear to have compounded the effects of the real estate regulations, leading to price falls.
Cement output data from the National Bureau of Statistics of China in Graph 1 shows that local production took a knock in the first quarter of 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic and this strongly recovered in the same period in 2021. The market recovered fast in mid-2020 and so the year-on-year growth for the second quarter was less in 2021. Output on a monthly basis remained ahead year-on-year from April 2020 and stayed ahead until May 2021. However, output in June 2021 was behind the figure in June 2020 and the figure for July 2021 was behind both July 2020 and July 2019.
Graph 1: Cement output by quarter in China, 2019 – mid-2021. Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China.
The Chinese Cement Association (CCA) was lamenting falling cement prices at the start of July 2021. It blamed the situation on slowing infrastructure development in some regions, increasing government restrictions on real estate development, especially poor mid-year weather and higher input prices such as for steel. China Resources Cement (CRC) expanded upon the point about increasing real estate regulations in its financial results for the first half of 2021 explaining that the Chinese government has been promoting a policy that aims to ensure that “residential properties are not for speculation” including controls on the financing of real estate. Later in mid-August 2021 the CCA reported that prices were recovering in east and central-southern regions although the situation remained poor in Guizhou province with shipments down to 60% of normal levels. Production control measures are expected to be implemented to stabilise the situation.
Graph 2: Sales revenue of large Chinese cement producers in first half of year, 2019 – 2021. Source: Company reports.
On the corporate side the sales revenue from some of the large Chinese cement producers mostly show the usual gap-tooth pattern that coronavirus has created everywhere as the market recovered. Notably Anhui Conch managed to avoid falling sales year-on-year in the first half of 2020. However, the CCA’s observation above about rising input costs is visible in the falling profits of some (but not all) of the companies covered here. For example, Anhui Conch’s net profit fell by 7% year-on-year to US$2.32bn in the first half of 2021. It blamed this on a significant rise in the price of raw coal. CRC also reported falling profits attributable to increased production costs.
CNBM reported an increase to cement and clinker sales volumes of 7.6% to 177Mt and concrete sales volumes by 13.4% to 52Mm3. It noted that, “In the first half of 2021, the national cement market showed the characteristics of high price level fluctuation adjustment.” From January to April 2021 local fiscal policy boosted demand for cement but from May 2021 continuous heavy rainfall and increasing bulk commodity prices slowed infrastructure project development. Anhui Conch’s cement and clinker sales volumes for both production and trading grew by 11.5% to 208Mt. It reported stable market demand in eastern, central and southern regions but noted falling prices in the west.
Looking ahead, two issues, among many, to consider are carbon trading and imports. The former has been coming for a while and was launched formally online nationally in mid-July 2021 for the power generation industry. The carbon price was nearly Euro7/t in late July 2021 in China compared to around Euro53/t in the European Union. Cement and steel are expected to join the Chinese national scheme in the next phase although analysts believe that issues such as data gathering, permit allocation rules, accounting standards, sector reduction targets and related financial support all need to be improved before this can happen. Imports are a connected issue and it has been interesting in recent months to hear financial analysts point out the risks, for example, of major exporting nations such as Vietnam relying on China so much. The CCA reckons that China imported 33.4Mt of clinker in 2020, an increase of 47% year-on-year, with 60% of this derived from Vietnam. With the Chinese government trying to tackle cement production overcapacity and meet growing environmental targets, imports look set to become a ‘hot ticket’ issue. In this context it is telling to see talk from the CCA of ensuring standards for imports such as verified carbon emissions. Naturally, the imports that could be trusted the most will probably be the ones from plants that Chinese cement producers have built themselves overseas. As waste importers into China found out previously, relying heavily on one market with strong state controls carries considerable risks. Cement exporters in South-East Asia take note.
Trade versus climate on the edge of the EU
09 June 2021Little trickles of detail about the European Union’s (EU) proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) started to emerge last week. The key bit of information that Bloomberg managed to squeeze out of their source was that a transition period with a simplified system is being considered from 2023 and then a full version could turn up in 2026. Cement importers, and those in selected other heavy industries, would be required to buy electronic emission certificates at prices corresponding to those in the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS). Other titbits include: that the prices will be set on a weekly basis based on the average carbon permit price within the EU that week; a default value will be devised for importers who can’t back up their emissions data; and imports from a country with its own carbon pricing scheme will be entitled to a discount. The plans are due to be made public in mid-July 2021. Debate is then expected to follow before approval will be required from the European Parliament and member states.
The detail isn’t out there yet but the CBAM is set to collide with trade agreement territory. For example, how the draft agreement tackles issues such as exports from Europe and whether importers should be compensated for not receiving a free allocation of carbon credits could be seen to offer competitive advantage to one party or another. Climate policy will clash with trade policy once or if the CBAM makes in into law. At this point countries that import cement into the EU may start trying to negotiate or complaining to the World Trade Organisation. One previous example of climate policy bashing into trade agreements is when the EU tried and failed to apply the ETS to aviation in the early 2010s. The experience from this incident is expected to inform the European Commission’s approach on the CBAM.
Outside the EU, new carbon pricing schemes have been popping up all over the place and various cement associations are creating or refining their own carbon neutral plans. Last week in North America, for example, the Cement Association of Canada said it was working with the government on launching a roadmap by the end of 2021. In the US, the Portland Cement Association (PCA) has also been hard at work to publish its own roadmap by the end of 2021. Meanwhile, over in the oil sector there were a couple of victories for activist shareholders in May 2021 with Shell, Exxon Mobil and Chevron all being forced to make changes to their climate change polices by courts and activist investors. This makes one wonder how long it will be before the same thing happens to cement companies.
All this increases the pressure between trading agreements and climate legislation. One of the questions that has popped up at Global Cement’s webinar series has been whether attendees thought that a global carbon pricing and/or trading scheme might be a realistic position or not (the majority said ‘yes’ within 20 years). Yet the EU CBAM, all these sustainability plans and continued pressure by investor activist don’t happen in isolation. They occur in an interconnected world.
So it was both non-surprising and eye-popping to discover recently that a private carbon exchange is being prepared in Singapore for a launch by the end of 2021. Climate Impact X (CIX) is being backed by DBS Bank, Singapore Exchange, Standard Chartered and the Singapore-government owned investment company Temasek. As for which companies would actually voluntarily enter into a scheme that would actively reduce profits, the answer lies above. Any organisation looking to trade between carbon pricing jurisdictions might well have an economic incentive to find a truly international scheme that was reputable. Or, perhaps, a publicly owned company dealing in carbon-intensive products might be bullied into one by its activist investors. The focus on such an exchange being reputable is essential here, given the potentially large amounts of money that could be involved and the mixed views on existing carbon offsetting schemes. CIX says it will use satellite monitoring, machine learning and blockchain technology to ensure the integrity of its carbon credits and this is certainly thinking in the right direction. Until it arrives though, we wait to see the detail on the EU CBAM.
Canada: The Cement Association of Canada (CAC) has congratulated the Ontario government for releasing its Climate Action Plan. The five-year plan was released on 8 June 2016. A key feature of the plan includes supporting a cap-and-trade carbon pricing scheme.
CAC singled out that the plan would enable emissions-intensive trade-exposed (EITE) industries, like cement, to reduce their own reliance on coal. The plan has set aside US$30 - $45m to help EITE industries across Ontario move away from coal and develop the necessary supply chains so they can better utilise alternative low carbon fuels. Other aspects of the plan the CAC liked included the plan’s decision to establish a service standard for decisions on alternative fuel applications and the collaborative nature of the plan’s consultation.
"Today, I'm happy with approaches that are laid out in the climate action plan which will help industries, like cement, reduce their greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions while remaining globally competitive. We look forward to continuing to work with the Ontario government on the next steps to ensure that Ontario achieves its GHG reduction targets," said Michael McSweeney, president and CEO, CAC.
China: According to Reuters, Chinese cement companies, including Huaxin Cement, covered by the carbon market in Hubei Province will likely be forced to spend millions of Chinese Yuan on permits before the compliance deadline on 10 July 2015 after authorities rejected their pleas for leniency.
In June 2015, the companies asked regulators to let them borrow some permits from the 2016 quota, saying that they could not afford to buy permits to cover their obligations for 2014. However, their requests were rejected, easing market concerns that big emitters would be let off the hook.
Huaxin Cement, Hubei's biggest cement producer, has been under particular pressure to buy over the last few trading days as it has a shortfall of 1.15 million permits. "Local officials have talked through the consequences of non-compliance with cement plants, so Huaxin Cement approved a US$6.44m budget to pay for permits," said a trader who did not want to be named as he was not authorised to speak to media.
Trading volumes on the Hubei carbon exchange have surged ahead of the deadline in the absence of any indication that the compliance date, initially set for 31 May 2015, would be pushed back for a second time. As of 9 July 2015, 44 companies, or 32% of the total 138 firms, did not have enough permits to cover their obligations. Of these, 26 were cement producers. A manager with Gezhouba Cement Group, Hubei's second-largest cement producer, said that its permit allocation had been miscalculated.
Companies covered by the Hubei exchange are only obliged to buy a maximum of 200,000 permits, regardless of how much they overshoot their cap. However, Gezhouba has eight subsidiaries in the scheme, bringing its total permit demand to more than a million. "The scheme is punishing big producers, but not inefficient competitors," said the Gezhouba manager. "We pleaded with the government to re-issue permits and narrow the gap, but we have not got any reply. How can we spend tens of millions on carbon?"
China: According to Reuters, cement producers participating in the carbon market in China's Hubei Province have told the local government that they cannot afford the millions of Chinese Yuan required to buy permits to cover mitigation obligations for 2014 and may default. Refusal to pay would test China's ability to force companies to comply with carbon targets and undermine efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, in which a planned national carbon market would have a central role.
The 138 companies covered by the Hubei exchange have to hand over carbon permits in June 2015 to settle their obligations for 2014. Around a quarter are cement firms, which have complained that they were not allocated enough credits. "They are in talks with the government to gain immunity from non-compliance penalties and are asking to borrow some permits from next year's quota," said an unnamed broker.
The companies are facing high environmental compliance costs at the worst possible time, as the economy slows and the construction sector struggles. Chinese cement production fell by 4.8% in the first four months of 2015.
Huaxin Cement, the biggest local producer, is 1.15 million permits short of meeting its mitigation targets, according to a document seen by Reuters. Carbon permits in Hubei are trading at US$4.43 so it could cost the company US$5.1m to cover its shortfall.
"Hubei is generally oversupplied, but the distribution is not balanced. Most of the power sector is over-allocated, but the cement and chemical sectors are short," said another unnamed broker. "Those facing a big gap are not attempting to buy from the market. They are pushing the government for a compromise." Penalties for non-compliance could include a deduction in permits for 2015 plus a fine of up to three times the value of the obligations in default, although that is capped at US$24,176.
Romania: Holcim is mulling its options after the European Union's (EU) top court dismissed its lawsuit against the European Commission (EC) over the theft of 1.6 million emissions allowances in 2010.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 18 Sept 2014 rejected Holcim's arguments that the EC should compensate it for Euro17.6m for damages suffered when the online carbon trading account of its Romanian subsidiary was hacked. In its judgment, the court ruled that Holcim must bear the losses resulting from the thefts and pay the EC's legal costs in the case, which were not disclosed.
"Holcim has taken note of the General Court's judgement," said a Holcim sposewoman. "We are currently analysing the decision in more detail and cannot comment any further."
In November 2010 cyber criminals hacked into Holcim's account at the Romanian emissions trading registry - previously one of around 30 online trading hubs in the EU carbon market - and transferred 1.6 million s-called EU allowances to two accounts at the Italian and Liechtenstein registries. According to EU records, the allowances then passed through registry accounts in the UK, France, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic within hours, before eventually being sold on emissions exchanges in Paris and Amsterdam.
Around 695,000 allowances were later returned to Holcim by various European authorities, but the company's spokeswoman said that the remaining units have still not been recovered.
Holcim sued the EC, which administers the bloc's electronic emissions trading network, in 2012 for failing to freeze the accounts containing the stolen units, for not returning them and for allowing other companies to turn them in for compliance under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). The EC refused to reveal the location of the allowances, saying that under EU law the details were confidential and could only be passed to European authorities.
Several European companies including International Power and ScottishPower have since surrendered some of the units to comply with the ETS, but claimed that they bought them in good faith, without knowing that they had been reported stolen.
Holcim had claimed that the EU should pay it the value of any allowances still missing, based on the market price on 16 November 2010 (the day of the theft) plus annual interest of 8%. That amounts to more than Euro17.6m, based on a spot allowance price of Euro14.60/unit.
Holcim has also sued Romania's National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) over similar claims.
"The court case against NEPA has been suspended by the civil court until the Romanian law enforcement agency (DIICOT) finalises the criminal investigation, but as of now we have no indication as to when this might happen," said Holcim.