Displaying items by tag: Carbon trading

Vietnam: The government will allocate greenhouse gas emission quotas to cement and steel plants and thermal power facilities by 31 December 2025, following a new decree issued on 9 June 2025, which takes effect on 1 August 2025. These facilities will receive quotas during the 2025–2026 period. The Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, in coordination with the ministries of industry and trade and construction, will lead the pilot proposal process and submit total allowable emissions to the prime minister for approval. Quotas for each plant must be finalised by the end of 2025. From 2027, ministries will propose lists of facilities and quotas for 2027–2028 and 2029–2030, with submissions due by 30 June of the first year of each period. The Ministry of Agriculture and Environment will allocate quotas by 31 October annually once approved.

Quotas will be based on emission intensity per unit of product, industry growth targets and each facility’s potential to reduce emissions. Facilities may trade quotas and carbon credits on the national market. The decree also revises rules on trading, borrowing, transferring and surrendering quotas. Facilities must surrender quotas equal to verified emissions, minus carbon credit offsets, by 31 December following each compliance period. Penalties and future deductions will apply to those who fail.

India: The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has issued a draft notification to establish India’s first compliance-based carbon market, according to The New Indian Express. The draft covers heavy industries such as cement, and lists 186 cement plants belonging to Ultratech Cement, Ambuja Cement, Dalmia Cement and others. These plants must cut greenhouse gas emission intensity (GEI) for two years, starting from the 2025–26 financial year under the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme 2023. Non-compliant producers must purchase carbon credit certificates, or failing this, face penalties from the Central Pollution Control Board. The draft will be finalised following a 60-day public consultation.

Two news stories to note this week concerning climate legislation in eastern Asia. First, the Indonesian government announced plans to create a mandatory carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) for key industries including cement. Second, an initiative to set up a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) in Taiwan emerged.

The proposal in Indonesia has been expected by the local cement sector and the wider market. Back in November 2024 at the ASEAN Federation of Cement Manufacturers (AFCM) event, an Indonesian Cement Association (ASI) speaker said that a preparation period for carbon trading by industrial sectors was expected from 2025 to 2027 followed by an easing-in period and then full implementation from 2031 onwards. This latest announcement appears to confirm the planned roll-out of the country’s cap-and-trade system. So far the government has set up a carbon tax, a voluntary carbon trading scheme (IDX Carbon) and a mandatory carbon trading scheme for part of the power sector. Notably, the local carbon price for that last one is low compared to other schemes elsewhere around the world. In 2024 the World Bank reported a price of US$0.61/t of CO₂. Since it only started in 2023 it is still early days yet though.

The new information confirms that the cement, fertiliser, steel and paper industries will be added to the mandatory emissions trading scheme. As per other cap-and-trade schemes, low emitters should be able to sell spare credits. However, comments made by Apit Pria Nugraha, Head of the Center for Green Industry, Ministry of Industry, at a recent trade event in Jakarta suggested that companies that emit more than their allowance would have to pay a 5% levy on the excess and buy credits for the rest. This seems to be different from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, where companies are fined only if they go above their allowance and they do not buy sufficient credits to cover themselves. However, we’ll have to wait to confirm this and other details.

Meanwhile in Taiwan, Peng Chi-ming, the Minister of Environment, announced that a bill establishing a local CBAM could be prepared in the second half of 2025. What is telling though is how the local press coverage of this story framed the trade policy aspects of such a scheme. Peng questioned how the EU CBAM might fare in response to the protectionist and pro-tariff administration in the US. He also noted that importers of cement and steel didn’t have to disclose their carbon emissions compared to local producers. Vietnam, unsurprisingly, was singled out as a likely target of a CBAM given that one third of Taiwan’s imports of cement come from there. Lastly, Peng also said that Taiwan would have to apply to the World Trade Organization for approval if or when it did set up its own CBAM.

Taiwan introduced a carbon tax at the start of 2025 with a standard price of US$9.16/t of CO₂ and lower prices for companies using approved reduction plans or meeting technology benchmarks. Research by Reccessary indicated that Taiwan Cement might face a carbon tax bill of US$41m and Asia Cement could be looking at US$28m based on 2023 data. These additional costs will increase operating costs and reduce profits.

All of this may sound familiar because it has already happened in Europe. Some form of carbon trading or taxation is introduced and then the debate moves on to carbon leakage via imports. The cement industries in Indonesia and Taiwan are unlikely to be aggravated directly by the EU CBAM but the wider economies of both countries are reacting to secure access to export markets. This, in turn, has implications for a heavy CO₂-emitting sector like cement. For example, if a CBAM isn’t already being considered in Indonesia, local heavy industry is likely to start lobbying for one, if the new ETS starts affecting import rates.

The Minister of Environment in Taiwan and others before him have identified that climate policies can be protectionist. As more countries regulate local carbon emissions, more trade disputes look likely. The big one right now might be the growing argument between the US Trump administration and the EU. Yet, every time a country sets up a new carbon scheme, a potential new argument over trade is brewing. And cement producers in Indonesia, Taiwan and everywhere else are stuck in the middle of all of this.

Indonesia: The Ministry of Industry will introduce mandatory emissions limits for cement producers, as well as for those in the fertiliser, paper and steel industries. Companies will be encouraged to participate in carbon emissions trading.

Apit Pria Nugra, head of the Green Industry Centre at the Ministry, said that companies could receive compensation for emissions below the limit, but that they would need to purchase carbon credits from other companies if they exceed the limit.

The government will subsequently extend the emissions trading scheme to five additional sectors.

China: 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.

Europe: 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.”

Europe: 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.’

It’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.

Little 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.