New Articles

EPA Issues Final Rule to Phase Down HFCs as White House Announces Measures to Prevent Illegal Imports

HFCs

EPA Issues Final Rule to Phase Down HFCs as White House Announces Measures to Prevent Illegal Imports

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized a rule intending to reduce the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in the United States by enforcing a cap and phasedown program under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act. According to the EPA, the final rule will phase down U.S. production and consumption of HFCs by eighty-five percent over the next fifteen years. Beginning January 1, 2022, allowances will be required to produce or import HFCs. The first of such allocations are to be announced by the EPA by October 1, 2021. The AIM Act instructs the EPA to issue a fixed quantity of transferrable production and consumption allowances, which producers and importers must hold in quantities equal to the amount of HFCs they produce or import. Alongside the EPA’s final rule, the EPA and other federal agencies under the Biden Administration announced additional actions intended to reduce consumption of HFCs, with a focus on curtailing and controlling illegal imports.

The final rule establishes HFC production and consumption baselines, a statutory phasedown schedule of allowed production and consumption, and the EPA’s approach to allocating and allowing transfer of allowances. According to the EPA, a global HFC phasedown is expected in order to avoid the most severe consequences of climate change. Producers and importers of HFCs should begin to consider how to adapt their businesses to the phasedown and how to take advantage of potential HFC alternatives. According to the phasedown schedule, steep reductions in allowances are planned for 2024 and 2029 to bring HFC production and consumption down to thirty percent against the baseline.

The EPA will set the initial allocation for each producer and/or importer based upon the individual entity’s production and/or import for the highest three-year period during the 2011-2019 period. The AIM Act had originally established the baseline to be the three-year period of 2011-2013, but the proposed rule published by the EPA in May 2021 had modified that to 2017 to 2019. Now with the final rule, the EPA has determined that using the average of the highest three years in the 2011 to 2019 window would ensure an equitable phasedown consistent with prior phasedowns.

The Administration announced the formation of an interagency task force consisting of the EPA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prevent and disrupt illegal importation of HFCs into the United States. The announcement of measures to prevent illegal imports follows reports of a surge in illegal trade in HFCs in Europe due to the European Union’s strict regulation of the greenhouse gases. The White House nods to this issue in its fact sheet on the matter, referring to “rates of noncompliance similar to what has been observed in other countries…” With the issuance of the EPA’s final rule, the U.S. has adopted a similar policy on HFCs but aims to avoid the enforcement issues observed in Europe, which have undermined the purpose of HFC regulations.

_______________________________________________________________________

Nithya Nagarajan is a Washington-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell LLP. She practices in the International Trade & Supply Chain group of the firm’s Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation industry team.

Camron Greer is an Assistant Trade Analyst in Husch Blackwell LLP’s Washington D.C. office.

carbon supply chain

What Would a Post-Carbon Supply Chain Look Like?

Businesses worldwide are pushing for more sustainable practices. As the threat of climate change has worsened, it’s become clear that industry as a whole must move away from carbon emission-generating practices. This movement has significant implications for supply chains.

Today’s supply chains are far from carbon-free. An organization’s supply chain often accounts for 90% of its greenhouse gas emissions when taking overall climate impacts into account. From diesel-powered trucks to natural gas-generated warehouse power, these networks rely heavily on fossil fuels.

It can be hard to imagine supply chains without these resources, but it’s not impossible. Here’s what a post-carbon supply chain would look like and how companies could achieve it.

Electric Vehicles

The most obvious difference between today’s supply chains and a post-carbon one is their vehicles. Transportation accounts for 21% of total global emissions, and freight constitutes a considerable portion of that figure. Almost all trucks that move freight today use fossil fuels, but post-carbon transport will be electric.

Electric trucks will likely be the first type of carbon-free vehicles to appear in supply chains. General Motors has already established goals to produce zero emissions, and electric road vehicles are increasingly common. Post-carbon supply chains will bring electrification to more than just trucks, though.

Ships and airplanes will also be electric. Their longer routes will require more efficiency, so they may rely on technologies like fuel cells or solar power instead of batteries. Regardless of the specifics, every vehicle in the post-carbon supply chain will be electric.

Green Power Sources

While vehicles may be the easiest culprit to pinpoint, they’re not the only source of emissions. Supply chains consume a considerable amount of energy, most of which comes from fossil fuels. In fact, if 125 multinational companies increased their supply chain renewable energy by 20%, they would save more than 1 billion metric tons of carbon emissions.

In a post-carbon supply chain, all energy would come from renewable sources. That would likely mean using various technologies, as sustainable power has varying effectiveness in different applications. Solar, wind and hydroelectric power would all play a part in the transition to zero-carbon operations.

A truly zero-carbon supply chain would also use renewables to generate power for its electric vehicles. Creating batteries or hydrogen for fuel cells requires energy, and this too must be green for supply chains to be truly sustainable.

Sustainable Sourcing

A more easily overlooked aspect of post-carbon supply chains is how sustainability plays into their corporate partnerships. A truly zero-emissions supply chain must ensure its suppliers are also carbon-free. Otherwise, it would still be investing in emissions-producing activity, albeit indirectly.

Industrial sectors like manufacturing are responsible for 29.6% of total emissions in the U.S. If a supply chain moved products from a company with such a significant carbon footprint, one could hardly consider it carbon-free. In a truly post-carbon supply chain, all connected sources are also zero emissions.

Ensuring these connections are sustainable requires a considerable amount of transparency. As such, post-carbon supply chains will require regular audits from involved parties to verify their sustainability. They’ll likely also employ technologies like Internet of Things (IoT) trackers and blockchains to keep operations transparent.

How Can the World Move Toward Post-Carbon Supply Chains?

These factors may seem like lofty goals right now. Today’s supply chains have a long way to go before they can say they’re truly carbon-free. Thankfully, however far-off these sustainability targets may seem, they are achievable. Companies can start acting now to move toward them.

Recognizing the business incentives for removing carbon from the supply chain can help encourage further action. According to one study, 84% of global consumers are more likely to make purchase decisions based on a company’s sustainability practices. Similarly, 61% are willing to wait for longer delivery times if they know it’s better for the environment.

Interest in sustainable supply chains will grow when more organizations realize these benefits. As this trend gains momentum, here are a few ways supply chains can start moving toward zero-carbon goals.

Improve Visibility

The first step in moving away from carbon is improving supply chain visibility. Companies can’t effectively become more sustainable if they don’t know the extent of their current unsustainable practices. Audits and studies can reveal where carbon emissions come from in a supply chain, guiding further action.

Organizations must also ensure their emissions monitoring is an ongoing process. Without continuous checking, they won’t be able to tell how different actions impact their overall goals. Periodic audits and implementing IoT sensors to track carbon emissions can ensure ongoing transparency.

In that spirit, supply chains should start improving visibility between partners. Asking for suppliers to offer proof of their sustainability initiatives will encourage broader action and help reduce emissions on all fronts.

Invest in Green Technologies

Some aspects of the post-carbon supply chain, like electric vehicles, aren’t applicable right now. While options may be limited today, more investment in these technologies will speed their development, making sustainability more viable quicker.

Many companies have already begun to invest in green technologies. Maserati has invested more than $867 million to refurbish its production hub to produce electric cars. As more money flows into these innovations, efficient, low-cost, carbon-free technologies will become available sooner, aiding a faster transition.

Green energy is a technology, not a resource. As such, it will only become cheaper and more efficient over time. Consequently, while some of these technologies may not be viable business choices now, they will be eventually, especially with more funding.

Collaborate

Since supply chains are so interconnected, it will take increased collaboration to push them away from carbon. Decarbonization is also a considerable undertaking. The transition will be far easier and faster if companies can work together toward a common goal.

Collaboration can mitigate the financial burden of decarbonization. Similarly, it can help some companies overcome any qualms they may have about the risks of going green. Climate action experts highlight that shared responsibility translates into reduced risk, at least in people’s perception of it.

In addition to collaborating with other related companies, supply chains can partner with environmental organizations. They can help show where improvements can be made, guiding more effective action.

Supply Chains Must Become More Sustainable

Supply chains are essential to virtually every industry, and they often produce some of the most emissions. As such, these operations must move away from fossil fuels as companies seek to become more sustainable.

The post-carbon supply chain seems like a lofty goal, but it’s attainable. When organizations realize these things are possible, they can start moving toward a better future.

wine

Climate Change: The French Wine Disaster & Beyond

Complex supply chains around the world make countries dependent on others for essential items, including food and drink. When it is interrupted, the effects are felt globally. We’ve already experienced the turmoil that disrupted supply chains can have during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire issued a statement to the nation’s supermarkets urging them to stock French products.

There are a few instances other than COVID-19 where disasters have interrupted the supply chain, causing economic damage. Agriculture tends to take the biggest financial hits and losses during disasters such as extreme weather, which are becoming more frequent, intense, and complex. Between 2008 and 2018, agricultural disasters cost developing countries more than €908 billion, having a profound effect on the livelihoods of smallholder farmers who were already struggling against large corporations.


Electrix, a producer of coffret électrique encastré for the food industry, takes a look at the French wine disaster and other events around the world that had an impact on food and drink.

The wine disaster

Unseasonal frost hit France this year, seeing a usually warm April suddenly struck by freezing temperatures and bitter frost. The initial record-warm early spring resulted in vines and fruit trees blooming earlier than they would usually, and they were then ruined by an unexpected bout of cold temperatures. Research has found that as the world’s temperature rises, the timing of seasons will change and become more severe.

Vineyards in Bordeaux, Burgundy, Provence, and the Rhône Valley were affected and resorted to lighting thousands of fires and candles near the vines and trees in an attempt to keep them warm overnight. Sadly, many winemakers have reported a 100 percent loss on their yield.

French agriculture minister Julien Denormandie commented: “This is probably the greatest agricultural catastrophe of the beginning of the 21st century.” Meanwhile, Prime Minister Jean Castex pledged €1bn in aid to winemakers and farmers. It may take years for some vineyards to recover.

France’s wine industry has already been dealing with the effects of COVID-19 and decreased demand from restaurant orders, as well as previously battling with Donald Trump’s tariffs on key French goods, including wine and cheese, which resulted in a near 14 percent drop in French wine and spirits exports last year. Furthermore, due to the effects of climate change, the flavors of wine will likely change or, in some cases, disappear forever. Merlot, for example, could become a thing of the past due to the grapes used in that particular wine being less resilient to changing weather patterns.

Thirsty crops exhausting groundwater

Rice is the primary source of food for more than three billion people every day and is helping prevent the world’s food crisis from getting worse. Sadly, there is a risk of rising food insecurity for such a staple food.

India is experiencing both a water and agricultural crisis that has been developing for decades. Rice is one of the thirstiest crops that exist – farmers use 15,000 liters of water on average to grow one kilogram of paddy (rice plant). Rice is draining northern India’s Punjab of its groundwater, with the ground expected to be exhausted by 2039 and become comparable to a desert. A fifth of the world’s population lives in India, who only have four percent of global water while simultaneously being the largest user of it with 90 percent of their water used for agriculture.

India isn’t the only country struggling to grow rice due to a lack of water – countries in Southeast Asia such as China are facing the same challenge. Climate change is making extreme weather like flooding and droughts happen more regularly, making water difficult to source. Scientists are looking to develop new strains of rice that require less water and are more resilient to drought and climate change.  Plus, water technologists in New Delhi are looking to design water management techniques that use no more than 600 liters of water for one kg of paddy.

Increased breeding of rodents in Australia

Australia has faced the brunt of climate change, ranging from bushfires that devastated 27.2 million acres of land to damaged food and crops due to the largest plague of mice ever seen. Australian farmers are used to a mouse plague every ten years or so; however, with the planet warming up, they could become more regular with more mice than ever. The temperatures create the perfect breeding ground for the rodents, which then go on to destroy crops.

Farmers are even forced to burn their crops which have been infested with mice and mice urine.

A disaster-resilient future is possible if we develop sustainable agriculture. Preparing for risk management can help in reducing agriculture’s vulnerability to natural disasters and climate change.

______________________________________________________________________

Sources

http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1381672/icode/

https://www.axios.com/french-wine-disaster-climate-change-1f86c34c-917c-4d86-b126-73f7618316a9.html

https://www.france24.com/en/20200328-france-issues-call-to-buy-french-as-coronavirus-erodes-single-market

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2021/apr/15/agricultural-disaster-two-billion-worth-of-french-wine-production-lost-after-cold-snaps

https://www.foodandwine.com/news/france-wine-vineyards-frost-damage-2021

https://www.foodandwine.com/news/france-wine-vineyards-frost-damage-2021

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/water-use-is-excessive-in-rice-cultivation-30352

https://apnews.com/article/india-climate-change-business-science-environment-and-nature-52a57d80d1dcb85f508cfd5f80120870

https://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/follow-the-food/a-staple-food-to-withstand-disaster/

https://theprint.in/economy/rice-the-one-grain-thats-keeping-the-worlds-food-crisis-from-getting-worse/653855/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-50951043

climate change

Climate Change Plans and the Impact on Global Trade

Changes in our planet’s climate are the most significant threat to almost any business. Climate change directly affects companies’ costs, as eco norms require many firms to look for environmentally friendly materials and processes.

The resilience of companies to new climate changes depends on a risk management process, a ready-made business plan, and a laid-out governance structure. Alas, many companies don’t have access to relevant climate information, so they don’t plan for or mitigate physical risk.

Facilities, supply chains, working networks, customers, and markets are the first targets that suffer from physical climate risk. For example, supply chains “break down” when natural disasters are affected by a rapidly changing climate.

How does climate affect production?

Climate change significantly increases the price of any production, reducing the speed with which supplies can be delivered. The quality of the goods and services produced also suffers.

Also, production and deliveries are entirely “broken” in timing due to minor delays in components and goods. Companies need to best manage the uncertainty associated with possible significant disruptions occurring in supply chains.

Assessing supply chain risks

Many companies are accustomed to assessing their supply chains from factors related to policy, regulatory, market, and technological nuances. Any unforeseen change in any of these areas puts the supply chain at significant risk, threatening companies’ ability to operate.

Weather is similarly considered in short- and medium-term supply chains. This data helps companies search for other suppliers and enter new financial markets. Proactive forecasting activities allow for short-term changes in supply chain decisions. Alas, this activity is considered inefficient, ad hoc, and short-sighted.

Annual adjustments with supply chain investments that lack long-term understandings of weather and climate trends will become highly problematic. This approach should be bypassed these days. Companies better start understanding the medium- and long-term physical risks in the climate environment.

Instead of planning a year, companies would do well to look a couple of years ahead and invest in those sources at the least risk from the climate.

Decarbonizing Supply Chains

While supply chain decarbonization processes are complex, many firms can capitalize on multiple climate issues by implementing such methods.

Companies in sectors that are most user-driven have higher per-chain emissions than direct emissions. By encouraging suppliers to create zero-emission supply chains, companies can increase their climate footprint to ensure that emissions in the sectors where the situation is most problematic are reduced to accelerate steps to combat climate change.

It’s no secret to world leaders that decarbonizing supply chains look very difficult in practice. Even the leading companies have difficulty with the necessary data and setting goals and standards that their suppliers adhere to.

Involving the entire (fragmented) supplier landscape can be an almost impossible task. The situation looks complicated if the emissions are at the beginning of the chain and collective action is needed to eliminate them.

More than half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions come from food, construction, clothing, consumer goods, electronics, automotive, trucking, and more. Indirectly, the share is often controlled by a few companies. End-consumer spending will not be able to increase spending in supply chains with zero.

Remarkably, about 40% of each of these supply chain emissions can be reduced by taking advantage of cyclicality, efficiency, and renewable energy sources that will have minimal impact on the price of all products. With zero emissions in the supply chain at the end-user, costs would increase to a maximum of 4%.

Supply chain decarbonization problems are solvable with many steps for each company:

-Create a comprehensive baseline emissions plan that will be gradually filled with actual supplier information;

-Setting ambitious with comprehensive emission reduction goals;

-A complete review of product design options;

-Revision of geographic supply strategy;

-Setting ambitious purchasing standards;

-Working together with suppliers to co-finance emission reduction levers;

-Working together with peers to agree on sectoral goals that increase impact with leveling the playing field;

-Leveraging economies of scale by increasing demand to lower the price of green solutions;

-Developing internal governance mechanisms where emission reduction will be a guiding mechanism.

Preparing supply chains for climate change

Supply chain management needs to be directed toward preparing for the unknown to ensure greater competitiveness and relevance in an ever-changing industrial landscape.

Many companies are now implementing solutions that address the industry’s role in mitigating supply chain risks due to climate change.

There are ways to protect supply chains from physical climate risk. Since most of the population lives near the coast, there is a risk that sea levels will rise, there will be more storms, flooding, and hurricanes, which only exacerbates the growing dangers.

Buying/building a property in a coastal area that lacks coastal flood risk mitigation infrastructure will not be the best idea to implement.

The electric commerce industry uses more materials in packaging that are suitable for recycling or biodegradability – an encouraging sign that consumers are concerned about climate change.

As the dialogue on climate change occurs among consumers and businesses, it is becoming increasingly clear that addressing climate change is already necessary.

Smart contracts and Global Trade: future effect on climate change plans

In recent times, bitcoin and the rest of the blockchain network have triggered the sustainable development of many industries in Global Trade. Smart contracts that run on blockchain will provide the world with just the right new ways to combat climate change and its effects.

However, many companies have missed the potential of smart contracts that are fully trackable, transparent, and irreversible in self-executing contracts that only work on blockchain to combat climate change.

It is no secret that blockchain companies are in no way affected by what happens in the environment. For example, day trading altcoins consistently break records among enticed traders. Smart contracts can help create globally accessible and automated reward systems that directly reward companies for engaging in sustainable practices (regenerative agriculture, carbon offsets, and so on).

The fight against climate change needs a more considerable change in habitual global consumption, and smart contracts could be just the right tool to encourage participation in areas of global “green” direction.

trade

DMCC Reports on the Future of Trade as Global Trade Defies Expectations in 2021

DMCC’s latest feature, Defying Predictions and Driving Post Pandemic Economic Recovery, unravels global trade predictions for 2021 in a positive manner. The article explains the surprising resilience through the 2020 year despite challenged by the global pandemic.

The report highlighted two key global and regional takeaways, first, global trade will underpin strong global economic growth in 2021 with the US and Chinese economies leading the way. This growth has defied expectations of double-digit annual declines, which had been estimated between 13-32% by the World Trade Organization. Second, Dubai, a major trade hub, saw its foreign trade growth rebound significantly in 2020, despite the economic challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The second half of 2020 seeing a particularly strong jump in volumes of 6% year-on-year. Dubai’s overall export values jumped 8% in 2020, on an annual basis.

Ahmed Bin Sulayem, Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of DMCC, said, “In 2020, the outlook for global trade was bleak as the world sought to grapple with the impact of the pandemic. Today, the picture is much more positive, as evidenced by the findings of our latest Special Edition Future of Trade – 2021 report. But while global trade has shown its resilience, it is simultaneously in the midst of profound change. Technology, changing consumer behaviors, the drive to combat climate change, and geopolitics will all be key contributors to its reshaping in the years ahead. In this context, our research puts forward several tangible recommendations to governments and businesses seeking to navigate this new landscape and accelerate the recovery from the pandemic.”

According to the research, the most transformative element of the global trade outlook is technology. Blockchain, decentralized finance, DeFi, and other new and disruptive technologies will further accelerate growth. For example, DeFi protocols have seen a considerable amount of funds invested. Since the start of 2021 alone, the total value locked into DeFi has tripled from approximately USD 20bn to USD 60bn. As digital infrastructures grow, they will continue to accelerate a ground-breaking shift in trade from the national to the global.

Commenting on the release of the Special Edition report, Feryal Ahmadi, Chief Operating Officer, DMCC, said, “Following a challenging and uncertain period, the evidence presented in our Future of Trade report suggests an optimistic outlook. Global trade has defied all expectations and will underpin global economic growth. While geopolitics will continue to present challenges and impact the global trading system, the adoption of technology will continue to shape the future of trade. An important development over the last twelve months has also been the pivot of governments, companies, and investors towards sustainable practices in international trade – now high on the agenda. What the report ultimately reiterates, in line with our previous findings, is that international coordination and collaboration, and technology remain the key enablers and drivers of the recovery.”

trade policy

US Trade Policy – A Tool to Help Combat the Climate Crisis

A climate crisis is upon us—the scientific evidence is overwhelming. The question is how to respond quickly and decisively on all fronts—at both a domestic and an international level. Carbon pricing is a key mechanism that economists believe is essential to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change. With this in mind, we believe the time has come to harness the power of global trade by using international trade laws to create incentives for a global economy in which the price of carbon is considered in regulating international trade flows. A new administration in Washington provides an opportunity for a more creative approach in which trade policy also serves climate policy. Indeed, President Biden explicitly stated in his climate change platform that “[w]e can no longer separate trade policy from our climate objectives.”

The Biden administration can use existing international trade laws—without delay and without legislation—to take action in response to the global climate crisis. By doing so, the US can lead the way and help shape an international regime that will provide an incentive for companies around the world to price carbon in connection with their operations or face economic consequences at the US border.

Two existing trade remedy laws facilitate such an approach: (1) Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and (2) the countervailing duty law. Together or individually, these laws provide a basis for immediate action creating commercial incentives for responsible behavior by US trading partners. Thoughtful use of Section 301 and the countervailing duty law would be consistent with sound climate policy and ensure that US workers are not disadvantaged by competition with foreign industries that ignore the carbon cost of products they export to the United States.

Section 301 authorizes trade retaliation against “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country” that “is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” This broad language should be interpreted as including industrial practices that fail to recognize the cost of carbon in the production of products imported into the United States. For example, the production of steel in China benefits from low-cost, carbon-intensive manufacturing. These unpriced carbon costs disadvantage US steel companies, which compete with Chinese steel imports, no less than other Chinese government policies that directly subsidize the Chinese steel industry. The United States could utilize Section 301 to increase pressure on trading partners such as China and, absent a change in behavior, impose duties to offset the negative impact of carbon-intensive production practices on US industries.

Likewise, the US countervailing duty law is sufficiently flexible to facilitate recognition of the cost of carbon, consistent with other efforts to expand the concept of what constitutes an unfair subsidy. For example, just last year the Department of Commerce revised its countervailing duty regulations to permit currency undervaluation to be treated as a subsidy.  Under this new approach, Commerce recently determined that Vietnam’s currency practices provide an unfair advantage to Vietnamese exporters and justify the imposition of countervailing duties on Vietnamese imports. The simple point is that US trade officials have now recognized that a broader set of foreign government policies are just as pernicious as the traditional subsidization practices that have long been the basis for imposing countervailing duties to protect US workers from unfair foreign competition.

We anticipate that our suggestions could be met with skepticism on the grounds that we are advocating an expansion of traditional notions of unfair trade practices. So be it. We are in a global crisis and business as usual will not do. Our point is to cut through the red tape and bureaucratic delays that have traditionally characterized the federal government’s response to the climate crisis. If nothing else, these trade tools could serve as forcing mechanisms to incentivize more effective international cooperation to fight climate change. Better to act immediately using the international trade tools we already have at our disposal than engage in a lengthy debate over procedure while the jobs and prosperity of US citizens are threatened by imports from countries unwilling to do their part in combatting climate change. There is no time to wait.

______________________________________________________________________

Mark Herlach, a partner at Eversheds Sutherland, is an international lawyer with a practice focused on energy, international trade and defense matters. Mark represents a broad range of clients, including corporations, advanced-technology companies and governments. Emily Rosenblum, an associate at Eversheds Sutherland, is a member of the Energy Group and international trade practice. Emily advises clients on a wide range of regulatory and commercial issues involving international trade.

european

European Greenhouse: What Climate Change and Green Politics Mean for Business in Europe

France, Germany and the Netherlands broke 40-year temperature records this year. Traditional wine areas, such as Bordeaux, have had to accept new grape types into the area for the first time in 80 years to combat the devastating impact of new weather patterns. In Germany and other central European countries, large swaths of forest died off this summer due to climate conditions. 

This summer of extreme weather follows on the heels of a dramatic gain in Green party popularity during and after the spring European parliament elections. What does this mean for companies that do business in the European Union? How will markets and regulations change in the near future as a result of rising concern over climate change across the Atlantic?  

European voters (and consumers) and highly concerned about climate change, with many of them naming climate change as the greatest threat to world security. Equally important, there are substantially fewer people in European Union member states who doubt the impact that climate change is having on the world compared to countries such as the United States. 

In a recent poll, thirteen percent of U.S. respondents expressed doubt over the existence of climate change or that it was due to human influence. This American response was the highest level of skepticism in the developed world; double that of Germany or France, and much higher than other countries such as Spain, where polls have shown as little as 2% of the population voicing any doubt as to the reality and danger of climate change.

Why Europe having fewer skeptics matters

Extreme weather in the summer is not a new issue in Europe. The heat wave of 2003 was estimated to have killed as many as 30,000 people in Europe due to the lack of air conditioning and infrastructure to care for those vulnerable to heat strokes, such as the elderly. The heat wave that broke records across the EU this summer was even hotter. These weather changes, hand-in-hand with the sudden surge in Green party success in EU and national elections, underscore that there is both pressing concern over climate change and a willingness to prioritize it among voters. 

Without climate deniers across the political aisle to delay or weaken environmentally-oriented legislation, it is likely that the business environment will soon be dramatically changed as the EU and member state governments adjust policies and regulations to combat climate change and protect their populations from future extreme weather.

Why the ‘American solution’ won’t work and building styles won’t change

The U.S. has extreme heat on a constant basis in places like Arizona and Texas, but the classical solution – to air condition every building – will not work in Europe because energy costs are twice the U.S. average and likely to rise quickly as governments are forced to switch to more expensive (in the short-term) renewable sources. The EU’s renewable energy directive was modified in 2018 to establish a 32% renewable energy target for 2030, which will likely keep energy prices high as more investments are needed to help develop renewable sources such as solar, wave and wind energy ‘farms’.  

Logical efforts to change building materials and styles to improve the ambient temperatures for residents are near impossible to implement in established cities in Europe. Traditional building styles that are intended to save on heating costs by trapping air inside often exacerbate heat waves since these buildings cannot effectively cool. New materials and building styles in the suburbs offer energy-efficient solutions to newer areas, but traditional architectural areas in downtown Prague, Rome and Paris are poorly positioned to embrace these options. It is inevitable that air conditioning use will increase (currently only 5% of European buildings are equipped with air conditioning, compared to 90% in the U.S.) but based on electricity costs and emission reduction goals in the EU, it is only a partial answer to the extreme weather problem.  Europe must find its own solution, and this search for alternatives will open up new opportunities for innovative companies.

What business opportunities appear as Europe combats climate change?

How will consumer habits change in the face of public concern over emissions and fears over ever-worsening extreme weather? What new business opportunities can we expect to see in Europe as Green-leaning governments and climate-conscious voters bring wholesale changes to the regulatory structure of the European Union in an attempt to combat climate change? Three areas of interest jump out: new government and venture capital funding for innovation, sharply increased transportation costs which will change logistics patterns and purchasing habits, and dramatic shifts to the land use and building traditions which should open up opportunities to U.S. companies.

Innovation will be valued and funded as never before

According to the Global Innovation Index for this year, seven of the top ten most innovative nations are located in Europe, and yet the U.S. (number three on the Index) outspent Europe on research and development by 20%. That is not to say that Europe is not investing in climate change innovation. On the contrary, in 2018, the European Investment Bank committed over 16 billion Euros to combating climate change, a number which has increased each year for a decade. Over $23 billion (US) was invested in innovative new European companies through venture capitalism last year alone.  These numbers will shoot up in the years to come as governments scramble to support new solutions to extreme weather challenges and climate change. 

The EU has already announced plans to focus on battery innovation and production, and will legislate an increasing use of renewables; supporting wind, wave and solar power projects to reduce oil, gas and coal use. Cleantech and Greentech projects are surging in clusters such as Cambridge, Copenhagen and Rotterdam. But there is a need for even more venture capital, and a growing recognition that governments will have to step in and add to research and start-up funding, as well as help scale up successful companies to compete regionally and globally.

A dramatic increase in transportation costs will shift production and consumer habits

Much like in the U.S., many European companies have a tendency to source materials and production overseas to lower costs. Unlike the U.S., they have generally been able to avoid the impact of the U.S.-China trade war. However, this breather is short-lived, as the EU seems to recognize the cost of transportation to society in the way of pollution and congestion and is likely going to be forced to ramp up emissions taxes in the near future, which will impact both the external and internal movement of goods. This, in turn, will force companies to recalibrate their logistics and likely move production closer to the point of sale. 

Companies will find that supporting local production becomes more reasonable as transportation costs go up, and EU member states with lower labor costs (under 10 euros an hour) such as Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Bulgaria should begin to see production facilities become more competitive compared to Asia as shipping costs increase in the face of emission taxes. Companies that were previously exporting goods into Europe will find that shifting production to Europe in support of EU clients is going to become substantially more cost-friendly (with the added advantage of avoiding import tariffs, should the global trade war broaden).

Land use and building codes are going to shift dramatically

A recent international climate change report supported what European farmers already have experienced: drought and extreme heat are forcing a rethink as to what is produced in Europe and how.  Climate change activists and consumer groups are also dragging EU trade agreements into the spotlight as countries like Brazil are accused of dramatically harming the global environment through wasteful agricultural practices – in part to increase beef sales to Europe. Increasing focus on how land is used and food produced in Europe will open up opportunities for innovative producers and new products (such as meat alternatives) in the European market. At the same time, European builders of new developments are being forced by regulations and consumer sentiment to use more environmentally-friendly materials and styles. 

The U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED certification has become a benchmark in Europe as well, and U.S. companies with know-how in this area of construction and building design can find robust new markets and development and construction partners throughout the EU who will be challenged by new regulations and public scrutiny to ‘green’ up their building projects.

Environmental challenges mean new opportunities for savvy companies

Changes in consumer demands and regulations imposed from the EU to the local level will open doors for companies that can bring in new, efficient and effective products. Governments attempting to be responsive to extreme weather challenges without taxing their voting population too directly (which is what sparked the ‘Yellow Vest’ protests in France) will demand more energy-efficient products and processes from businesses. Innovative companies, ready to expand and take on new challenges, will find it relatively quick and painless to register in the European market to take advantage of the possibilities that are manifesting due to environmental and consumer changes.   

____________________________________________________________

Kirk Samson is the owner of Samson Atlantic LLC, a Chicago-based international business consulting company which offers market research, political risk assessment, and international negotiations assistance.  Mr. Samson is a former U.S. diplomat and international law advisor who lived and worked in ten different countries.