The 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) was held in Belém, Brazil, from 10 to 22 November. COP30 again highlighted strong resistance from many countries — led by China, Saudi Arabia and India — to the EU’s planned carbon border tax, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).
Who Do I Call If I Want To Call Europe
The EU sits as a distinct party to the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, while each of the 27 Member States also has its own seat.
Before each COP, environment and climate ministers meeting in the Council adopt “negotiating conclusions” that bind the EU and its Member States on key questions such as emission‑reduction targets, finance, adaptation and carbon markets.
The European delegation brings together negotiators from the Commission (led by DG CLIMA), the EEAS and the Member States, who coordinate their positions constantly in internal “EU coordination” meetings before each negotiating session.
Member states do not sit as independent delegations facing the EU on issues covered by the mandate, allowing the EU to “speak with one voice” on common positions.
The EU’s COP30 negotiating mandate was only secured after deep disagreements between member states over the level of ambition and the use of international carbon credits.
Some countries, led by Italy and Poland, considered the greenhouse‑gas reduction goal — 66.25% to 72.5% by 2035 depending on the country, and 90% by 2040 compared to 1990 — too costly and demanded more flexibility.
Others, notably Spain and Sweden, pushed for a stricter target without heavy reliance on carbon credits to offset emissions instead of cutting them.
Defense Mode on CBAM
Concerns over unilateral trade measures such as the EU’s CBAM were omnipresent at COP30.
CBAM will, from 1 January 2026, apply to imports a carbon price equivalent to that of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) in order to ensure fair competition and avoid carbon leakage to less‑regulated countries, in six carbon‑intensive sectors: cement, aluminium, steel, fertilisers, hydrogen and electricity.
For many non‑European countries, CBAM is seen as a protectionist and discriminatory initiative that unilaterally applies EU climate standards to developing countries.
The European delegation feared COP30 would turn into a CBAM‑focused “EU‑bashing” session.
Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra expressed frustration at seeing major fossil‑fuel exporters brand CBAM as a protectionist trade tool without acknowledging the need to ensure a level environmental playing field between European and non‑European firms.
China reportedly offered the EU concessions on the COP30 final text on mitigation in exchange for outright repeal of CBAM.
But the COP30 final document strikes a relatively conciliatory tone on the future of climate measures with trade impacts.
It states that “measures taken to combat climate change,
including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade”
COP30 even saw the emergence, at Brazil’s initiative, of a fledgling “Integrated Forum on Climate Change and Trade” (IFCCT) to better align trade regimes with climate ambition.
Crunch Time For CBAM
On 10 December, the European Commission is due to present a major legislative proposal on the future of CBAM, intended to limit circumvention, prepare an extension of the sectors covered and support EU industries exposed to the phase‑out of free CO₂ allowances.
The gradual disappearance of free allowances by 2035 is sharpening tensions.
EU industries exposed to international competition still receive free allowances under the EU ETS, which lowers their carbon bill compared to the market price.
Companies fear a loss of competitiveness in markets without a carbon price and are pushing for mechanisms akin to export rebates, which are legally fragile under WTO rules and run counter to the logic of CBAM.
The Commission is therefore expected to refrain from extending free allowances and instead favour targeted financial aid calibrated to the actual risk of market‑share loss. It must also take a position in the debate on methods for calculating embedded emissions in imports.
Under CBAM, importers must buy certificates corresponding to the embodied emissions of their products, which requires measuring those emissions either on the basis of real (declared and verified) data or, in the absence of reliable data, using “default values” (average carbon intensity by product and country).
Finally, the Commission is working on extending CBAM to other sectors, which is already prompting reactions from some partners, particularly China, worried about the possible inclusion of components for solar panels or electric vehicles.