New Articles

Climate Change Plans and the Impact on Global Trade

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.