Economy
Bell: Carbon Rules Must Not Penalize U.S. Steelmakers
Written by David Schollaert
February 1, 2022
While the United States and the European Union have been working to resolve their dispute over punitive tariffs on steel and aluminum and re-establish historical transatlantic trade flows, their focus has shifted away from Section 232 duties and towards a carbon-based sectoral arrangement.
The plan: to negotiate a global agreement to address carbon intensity and steel overcapacity. Though still in its early stages, the idea is that both jurisdictions will align on ways to measure the life-cycle emissions from the steel and aluminum sector and place restrictions on high-emitting imports from other nations.
While the two sides have found mutual ground on tariffs – replacing Section 232 with a tariff rate quota on European exports to the United States – they remain divided on how to regulate carbon intensity. The U.S. steel industry is strongly opposed to a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) that would penalize U.S. producers.
Philip Bell, president of the Steel Manufacturers Association, said he doesn’t have a lot of information from Commerce or the United States Trade Representative (USTR) regarding their progress – noting it’s very early in the process – but was adamant that U.S. steelmakers and manufacturers should not have to pay a penalty when it comes to carbon. “Whatever we do on carbon, we must realize that we should not penalize American steelmakers or American manufacturers because of our superior environmental stewardship and our already low CO2 intensity,” he said.
Though he wasn’t clear on what the trade policy should look like, he did argue that it’s the countries producing “dirty” steel that should pay a premium for access to the marketplace.
“We shouldn’t tax domestic steel producers on carbon,” said Bell. “In fact, a lot of the burdensome regulations that you see already serve as a tax on steelmakers and manufacturers. We just need to look for ways to level the playing field.”
Bell expects this to be an uphill battle, as there’s little political will in the U.S. for any kind of carbon tax or border adjustment. “This is going to be hard, and we don’t have a lot of data yet, but we need to enter into these discussions very carefully, because we shouldn’t penalize domestic steel producers,” he said.
By David Schollaert, David@SteelMarketUpdate.com
David Schollaert
Read more from David SchollaertLatest in Economy
Metalformers expect steady conditions in coming months
Metalformers expect economic activity to stabilize over the next three months, according to the recently released July Business Conditions Report from the Precision Metalforming Association (PMA).
Architecture Billings Index rises from 4-year low in June
The Architecture Billings Index (ABI) ticked up in June following May’s four-year low, according to the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and Deltek. While the index improved this month, it continues to indicate weak business conditions among architecture firms.
Beige Book: Uncertainty to continue fueling slower economic growth
Growth in the US economy continues to be constrained. The Federal Reserve’s Beige Book report for July shows more areas reporting flat or declining economic activity than in its previous report at the end of May.
AISI, AISC, University of Massachusetts get ~$6.4M EPA grant
The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst have received a grant to enhance emissions reporting for steel construction projects.
Manufacturing activity in New York state continues to soften
New York state saw a continued decline in manufacturing activity in July, according to the latest Empire State Manufacturing Survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.