1. The EU’s C-BAM should reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions by preventing ‘leakage’ to places without carbon pricing. The most-affected imports are from middle-income countries inc China, Russia
But the impact for some African economies will be very significant
2. The worst-affected is Mozambique via its aluminium exports.
It’s plausible C-BAM could reduce Mozambique's GDP by over 1 per cent.
The EU recognises that Mauritania, Sierra Leone and Senegal will also be negatively affected. Algeria and Egypt too.
3. Some have argued @SamuelMarcLowe@CER_EU for an exemption from the carbon import tax for Least Developed Countries (LDCs).
We’re sympathetic, but that would create unhelpful incentives to relocate dirty industry...
4. The European Parliament has called on @EU_Commission to reallocate C-BAM revenues to LDCs.
Good principle but too small: the EU’s wider finance to Africa is lacking - just 19% of the total.
We argue Africa should expect at least 33% (would still lag the UK and US).
With the UK's aid commitment being debated a commonly-cited argument (inc by @BBCNews) against it is
"A household that is having to borrow every year wouldn’t give to charity: it should pay off its own debts first”
Four reasons this analogy is wrong and the counter-arguments:
First, the Government isn’t a household - it won’t die, or retire, so the imperative to pay off debt isn’t the same. Indeed, as this @ICAEW chart shows, every G7 economy is in debt, the UK not particularly so.
Second, the assertion ignores assets - using the logic of the original statement, no household with a mortgage would give to charity until it was paid off. This is clearly not the case. In the UK's case, Govt. assets include our reputation & institutions (Parliament, BoE etc).