 |
LONDON, June 11, 2025 /PRNewswire/ —The ETC’s new briefing note, Global trade in the energy transition: principles for clean energy supply chains and carbon pricing, highlights how technology progress and carbon pricing can accelerate the global energy transition. However, growing concerns over concentrated supply chains and perceptions that carbon border adjustments are protectionist could significantly delay global progress. The ETC briefing proposes an optimal way forward on two crucial trade-related issues:
- Developing domestic supply chains: six principles for policy.
- Carbon pricing and carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs): gaining global agreement to policies which can drive decarbonisation of “hard to abate” sectors .
Nearshoring clean technology supply chains: six principles for policy
The cost of several clean energy technologies has plummeted in the last decade. Solar PV module prices dropped 94% since 2011, lithium-ion battery prices fell over 92% since 2010 while doubling in energy density,[1],[2] and in 2024, almost two-thirds of electric vehicles sold in China were cheaper than Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles of equivalent size and quality.[3]
China has led this progress and now holds dominant market shares in multiple clean technologies: this primarily reflects strategic vision, low capital costs, technological innovation and dynamic entrepreneurship rather than simply low labour cost.
In response to China’s dominance, many countries seek to diversify supply chains through nearshoring. This reflects concerns about “energy security” and a desire to grow local value and employment, but badly designed nearshoring could add significantly to the cost of the energy transition. The ETC therefore proposes six principles to guide optimal policy:
1. Aim for diversified supply chains, not complete autarky (i.e. complete self-reliance).
2. Clarify different dimensions of “security” – economic vs national security – with different implications in different sectors.
3. Tailor policy by technology, focussing nearshoring efforts on sectors where cost-competitive domestic production can be achieved.
4. Base any use of tariffs on factual analysis of current subsidies in compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.
5. Focus primarily on the location of employment and value-add rather than ownership, recognising that inward investment can be a major driver of technology transfer.
6. Work with China to increase climate finance flows to lower-income countries, supporting accelerated deployment of clean technologies.
“In an ideal world, free from geopolitical tensions or supply chain risks, China’s stunning technological progress and cost reduction would be welcomed as enabling a faster and cheaper energy transition worldwide. But there are economic and security-related reasons for seeking to develop domestic supply chains. Well-designed policy can ensure that those objectives are met in a way that drives further technological progress and cost reduction,” said Adair Turner, Chair of the Energy Transitions Commission.
Carbon pricing and CBAMs: gaining global agreement to a vital policy lever
In some sectors of the economy, low-carbon technologies are already cost-competitive, but in “hard to abate” sectors such as steel, cement, chemicals and shipping, using available decarbonisation technologies will entail a “green cost premium”. Carbon pricing is therefore required to make decarbonisation in these sectors economically feasible. While 53 countries now have some form of carbon pricing, covering over 20% of global emissions,[4] only the EU has prices high enough to significantly influence the economics of decarbonisation.
But if one country or bloc, such as the EU, imposes carbon prices on energy-intensive internationally traded sectors, production will shift to other countries which do not impose carbon prices, and no emissions reduction will be achieved – unless equivalent carbon prices are in place. The ideal solution would be globally agreed carbon prices applied to “hard to abate” sectors, and the International Maritime Organization recently agreed a crucial step towards that approach for shipping.[5] Until that approach is in place for other “hard to abate” sectors, CBAMs are essential to support decarbonisation, are not protectionist, and are the only way by which developed countries can take responsibility for imported emissions.
The ETC therefore strongly supports the EU imposition of a CBAM and its recent commitment to make the CBAM more robust.
Progress towards the ideal internationally agreed solution should, however, be fostered by:
- Seeking agreement, for instance through the WTO, on international standards for the measurement of carbon intensity.
- Providing technical assistance to developing countries seeking to deploy carbon pricing.
- Allocating some of the revenues which will accrue to the EU CBAM to support climate finance flows to lower-income countries.
“The world is entering a new industrial era powered by clean energy. Clean industrial projects are flourishing in diverse geographies, opening opportunities for new trade dynamics. But well-designed policies, including carbon pricing, supply-side financial incentives, and demand-side regulations are essential to make projects viable and precipitate final investment decisions.” said Faustine Delasalle, Vice-Chair of the Energy Transitions Commission and CEO of Mission Possible Partnership.
Global trade in the energy transition: principles for clean energy supply chains and carbon pricing builds on existing ETC analysis,Better, Faster, Cleaner: Securing clean energy technology supply chains. However, the institutions with which ETC’s Commissioners are affiliated have not been asked to formally endorse this briefing.
Download the report: https://www.energy-transitions.org/publications/global-trade-in-the-energy-transition/
For further information on the ETC please visit: https://www.energy-transitions.org
[1] Note: Volume-weighted average across passenger EVs, commercial vehicles, buses, 2- and 3-wheelers, and stationary storage; includes cell and pack. 2024 saw a 20% year-over-year decrease from 2023, the largest drop since 2017. See BNEF (2024), 2024 Lithium-Ion Battery Price Survey.
[2] BNEF (2023), Long-term Electric Vehicle Outlook.
[3] IEA (2025), Trends in electric car affordability.
[4] World Bank (2025), Carbon Pricing Dashboard.
[5] Reuters (2025), UN shipping agency strikes deal on fuel emissions, CO2 fees.
