The DOI matches its Crossref record; 90 of the 90 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 67 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments
Open accessOverview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
45 Own interpretation · 29 No full text of the sources · 12 No basis given · 5 Sources not found · 5 Not checked yet · 4 Own result · 2 Supported · 1 Supported so far
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that the viability of border carbon adjustment schemes can be substantially reduced with the current legal and practical implementation constraints.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the carbon content of goods produced in foreign jurisdictions is difficult to measure.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Practical implementation constraints
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The common finding is that BCAs are effective in curbing leakage through the competitiveness channel.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Leakage reduction.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The aforementioned EMF 29 study 43 , which considers a 20% emissions reduction in the industrialized world (countries listed in Annex 1 of the Kyoto Agreement), found that the BCAs for EITE industries reduce leakage rates by about one-third (from a mean of 12% with a BCA to a mean of 8% without).”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Leakage reduction.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [43] 43. Böhringer, C., Balistreri, E. J. & Rutherford, T. F. The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: overview of an Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF 29). Energy Econ. 34, S97-S110 (2012).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The few CGE studies that consider source-specific import charges found that leakage reductions are significantly greater than those achieved with levies imposed at the industry level 61,62 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Leakage reduction.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [61] 61. Winchester, N. The impact of border carbon adjustments under alternative producer responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 94, 354-359 (2012). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [62] 62. Böhringer, C., Bye, B., Fæhn, T. & Rosendahl, K. E. Targeted carbon tariffs: export response, leakage and welfare. Resour. Energy Econ. 50, 51-73 (2017). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The downside of a uniform metric is that import adjustments would not provide a direct incentive for individual manufacturers abroad to avoid emissions.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Practical implementation constraints
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, under WTO law, a country cannot make adjustments for costs that it does not impose on its own businesses, so the scope of adjustment must be consistent with the scope of domestic application (for example, the European Union (EU) ETS covers only power stations, energy-intensive industries and intra-EU aviation).”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Practical implementation constraints
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When carbon emissions are priced unilaterally, the global environmental impact will be undermined to the extent that international markets transmit spillover effects that increase emissions in other countries.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Abstract he fundamental challenge in climate policy is to cope with the fact that climate protection constitutes a global public good.Each country has a strong incentive to free-ride on the emissions abatement of other countries while contributing little itself.Without a supranational authority to coerce common action, a 'tragedy of the commons' arises, in which countries' self-interest prevents a globally efficient climate policy.Participation in an international climate treaty has to be voluntary and self-enforcing.As a consequence of free-rider incentives, the voluntary commitments made by countries in the Paris Agreement are insufficient to achieve the Paris target of limiting global warming to well below 2 °C (ref. 1 ).Cost-effective climate action calls for coordinated, harmonized carbon pricing across jurisdictions worldwide to reduce carbon emissions where abatement is cheapest 2,3 .In reality, myriad uncoordinated, unilateral climate policies are leading to a landscape of divergent carbon prices with limited geographical coverage 4,5 .When carbon emissions are priced unilaterally, the global environmental impact will be undermined to the extent that international markets transmit spillover effects that increase emissions in other countries.Dubbed 'carbon leakage' 6-9 , these effects occur primarily via two channels 10 .The fossil fuel market channel transmits leakage when emissions regulations in open economies reduce the demand for fossil fuels, which causes global fossil fuel prices to fall and thus stimulates demand for fossil fuels in unregulated regions.Leakage through the competitiveness channel occurs when unilaterally regulated carbon-intensive businesses reduce production because of higher operating costs, while production by less regulated manufactures abroad increases.Other potential leakage channels, such as international technology spillovers 11 , are also possible but more uncertain, and thus often ignored in quantitative analyses.Carbon leakage raises concerns about the effectiveness of unilateral climate policies.Economists worry that leakage hampers global cost-effectiveness.Representatives of emissions-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) industries in climate-concerned nations point out that leakage results from an undue disadvantage vis-à-vis less regulated competitors abroad.Environmentalists view leakage as an avoidance mechanism-a loophole whereby consumers in developed countries substitute higher-priced domestic products of lower carbon content with imports that are cheaper but more carbon intensive.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Import adjustments based only on direct embodied emissions would therefore significantly underestimate the full emissions embodied in EITE goods.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Emissions intensities and trade in embodied carbon
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“these effects occur primarily via two channels 10 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Abstract he fundamental challenge in climate policy is to cope with the fact that climate protection constitutes a global public good.Each country has a strong incentive to free-ride on the emissions abatement of other countries while contributing little itself.Without a supranational authority to coerce common action, a 'tragedy of the commons' arises, in which countries' self-interest prevents a globally efficient climate policy.Participation in an international climate treaty has to be voluntary and self-enforcing.As a consequence of free-rider incentives, the voluntary commitments made by countries in the Paris Agreement are insufficient to achieve the Paris target of limiting global warming to well below 2 °C (ref. 1 ).Cost-effective climate action calls for coordinated, harmonized carbon pricing across jurisdictions worldwide to reduce carbon emissions where abatement is cheapest 2,3 .In reality, myriad uncoordinated, unilateral climate policies are leading to a landscape of divergent carbon prices with limited geographical coverage 4,5 .When carbon emissions are priced unilaterally, the global environmental impact will be undermined to the extent that international markets transmit spillover effects that increase emissions in other countries.Dubbed 'carbon leakage' 6-9 , these effects occur primarily via two channels 10 .The fossil fuel market channel transmits leakage when emissions regulations in open economies reduce the demand for fossil fuels, which causes global fossil fuel prices to fall and thus stimulates demand for fossil fuels in unregulated regions.Leakage through the competitiveness channel occurs when unilaterally regulated carbon-intensive businesses reduce production because of higher operating costs, while production by less regulated manufactures abroad increases.Other potential leakage channels, such as international technology spillovers 11 , are also possible but more uncertain, and thus often ignored in quantitative analyses.Carbon leakage raises concerns about the effectiveness of unilateral climate policies.Economists worry that leakage hampers global cost-effectiveness.Representatives of emissions-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) industries in climate-concerned nations point out that leakage results from an undue disadvantage vis-à-vis less regulated competitors abroad.Environmentalists view leakage as an avoidance mechanism-a loophole whereby consumers in developed countries substitute higher-priced domestic products of lower carbon content with imports that are cheaper but more carbon intensive.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] 10. Burniaux, J. M. & Oliveira-Martins, J. Carbon leakages: a general equilibrium view. Econ. Theor. 49, 473-495 (2012). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The fossil fuel market channel transmits leakage when emissions regulations in open economies reduce the demand for fossil fuels, which causes global fossil fuel prices to fall and thus stimulates demand for fossil fuels in unregulated regions.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Abstract he fundamental challenge in climate policy is to cope with the fact that climate protection constitutes a global public good.Each country has a strong incentive to free-ride on the emissions abatement of other countries while contributing little itself.Without a supranational authority to coerce common action, a 'tragedy of the commons' arises, in which countries' self-interest prevents a globally efficient climate policy.Participation in an international climate treaty has to be voluntary and self-enforcing.As a consequence of free-rider incentives, the voluntary commitments made by countries in the Paris Agreement are insufficient to achieve the Paris target of limiting global warming to well below 2 °C (ref. 1 ).Cost-effective climate action calls for coordinated, harmonized carbon pricing across jurisdictions worldwide to reduce carbon emissions where abatement is cheapest 2,3 .In reality, myriad uncoordinated, unilateral climate policies are leading to a landscape of divergent carbon prices with limited geographical coverage 4,5 .When carbon emissions are priced unilaterally, the global environmental impact will be undermined to the extent that international markets transmit spillover effects that increase emissions in other countries.Dubbed 'carbon leakage' 6-9 , these effects occur primarily via two channels 10 .The fossil fuel market channel transmits leakage when emissions regulations in open economies reduce the demand for fossil fuels, which causes global fossil fuel prices to fall and thus stimulates demand for fossil fuels in unregulated regions.Leakage through the competitiveness channel occurs when unilaterally regulated carbon-intensive businesses reduce production because of higher operating costs, while production by less regulated manufactures abroad increases.Other potential leakage channels, such as international technology spillovers 11 , are also possible but more uncertain, and thus often ignored in quantitative analyses.Carbon leakage raises concerns about the effectiveness of unilateral climate policies.Economists worry that leakage hampers global cost-effectiveness.Representatives of emissions-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) industries in climate-concerned nations point out that leakage results from an undue disadvantage vis-à-vis less regulated competitors abroad.Environmentalists view leakage as an avoidance mechanism-a loophole whereby consumers in developed countries substitute higher-priced domestic products of lower carbon content with imports that are cheaper but more carbon intensive.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] 10. Burniaux, J. M. & Oliveira-Martins, J. Carbon leakages: a general equilibrium view. Econ. Theor. 49, 473-495 (2012). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that BCAs have the potential to play an important role in addressing carbon leakage.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Emissions intensities and trade in embodied carbon
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In reality, myriad uncoordinated, unilateral climate policies are leading to a landscape of divergent carbon prices with limited geographical coverage 4,5 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Abstract he fundamental challenge in climate policy is to cope with the fact that climate protection constitutes a global public good.Each country has a strong incentive to free-ride on the emissions abatement of other countries while contributing little itself.Without a supranational authority to coerce common action, a 'tragedy of the commons' arises, in which countries' self-interest prevents a globally efficient climate policy.Participation in an international climate treaty has to be voluntary and self-enforcing.As a consequence of free-rider incentives, the voluntary commitments made by countries in the Paris Agreement are insufficient to achieve the Paris target of limiting global warming to well below 2 °C (ref. 1 ).Cost-effective climate action calls for coordinated, harmonized carbon pricing across jurisdictions worldwide to reduce carbon emissions where abatement is cheapest 2,3 .In reality, myriad uncoordinated, unilateral climate policies are leading to a landscape of divergent carbon prices with limited geographical coverage 4,5 .When carbon emissions are priced unilaterally, the global environmental impact will be undermined to the extent that international markets transmit spillover effects that increase emissions in other countries.Dubbed 'carbon leakage' 6-9 , these effects occur primarily via two channels 10 .The fossil fuel market channel transmits leakage when emissions regulations in open economies reduce the demand for fossil fuels, which causes global fossil fuel prices to fall and thus stimulates demand for fossil fuels in unregulated regions.Leakage through the competitiveness channel occurs when unilaterally regulated carbon-intensive businesses reduce production because of higher operating costs, while production by less regulated manufactures abroad increases.Other potential leakage channels, such as international technology spillovers 11 , are also possible but more uncertain, and thus often ignored in quantitative analyses.Carbon leakage raises concerns about the effectiveness of unilateral climate policies.Economists worry that leakage hampers global cost-effectiveness.Representatives of emissions-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) industries in climate-concerned nations point out that leakage results from an undue disadvantage vis-à-vis less regulated competitors abroad.Environmentalists view leakage as an avoidance mechanism-a loophole whereby consumers in developed countries substitute higher-priced domestic products of lower carbon content with imports that are cheaper but more carbon intensive.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [4] 4. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2020 (World Bank, 2020); https:// openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/33809
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] 5. Effective Carbon Rates 2021: Pricing Carbon Emissions through Taxes and Emissions Trading (OECD, 2021); https://doi.org/10.1787/0e8e24f5-en source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notably, international law views carbon taxes as fiscal instruments, akin to indirect taxes, such as excise and value-added taxes, which are commonly border adjusted.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > legal constraints
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“As a result, a default emissions rate would most probably have to be calculated based on industry-or technology-specific average measures of embodied carbon 23,24 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Practical implementation constraints
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] 23. Ismer, R. & Neuhoff, K. Border tax adjustment: a feasible way to support stringent emission trading. Eur. J. Law Econ. 24, 137-164 (2007). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] 24. Fischer, C. & Fox, A. Comparing policies to combat emissions leakage: border carbon adjustments versus rebates. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 64, 199-216 (2012). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, the form and type of BCA allowed will depend on the form of carbon pricing.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > legal constraints
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the voluntary commitments made by countries in the Paris Agreement are insufficient to achieve the Paris target of limiting global warming to well below 2 °C (ref. 1 )”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Abstract he fundamental challenge in climate policy is to cope with the fact that climate protection constitutes a global public good.Each country has a strong incentive to free-ride on the emissions abatement of other countries while contributing little itself.Without a supranational authority to coerce common action, a 'tragedy of the commons' arises, in which countries' self-interest prevents a globally efficient climate policy.Participation in an international climate treaty has to be voluntary and self-enforcing.As a consequence of free-rider incentives, the voluntary commitments made by countries in the Paris Agreement are insufficient to achieve the Paris target of limiting global warming to well below 2 °C (ref. 1 ).Cost-effective climate action calls for coordinated, harmonized carbon pricing across jurisdictions worldwide to reduce carbon emissions where abatement is cheapest 2,3 .In reality, myriad uncoordinated, unilateral climate policies are leading to a landscape of divergent carbon prices with limited geographical coverage 4,5 .When carbon emissions are priced unilaterally, the global environmental impact will be undermined to the extent that international markets transmit spillover effects that increase emissions in other countries.Dubbed 'carbon leakage' 6-9 , these effects occur primarily via two channels 10 .The fossil fuel market channel transmits leakage when emissions regulations in open economies reduce the demand for fossil fuels, which causes global fossil fuel prices to fall and thus stimulates demand for fossil fuels in unregulated regions.Leakage through the competitiveness channel occurs when unilaterally regulated carbon-intensive businesses reduce production because of higher operating costs, while production by less regulated manufactures abroad increases.Other potential leakage channels, such as international technology spillovers 11 , are also possible but more uncertain, and thus often ignored in quantitative analyses.Carbon leakage raises concerns about the effectiveness of unilateral climate policies.Economists worry that leakage hampers global cost-effectiveness.Representatives of emissions-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) industries in climate-concerned nations point out that leakage results from an undue disadvantage vis-à-vis less regulated competitors abroad.Environmentalists view leakage as an avoidance mechanism-a loophole whereby consumers in developed countries substitute higher-priced domestic products of lower carbon content with imports that are cheaper but more carbon intensive.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites ref. 1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The terms-of-trade effect establishes the economic rationale of BCA as a sanctioning instrument.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Cooperation or retaliation?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This outcome may be at odds with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities articulated in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and reaffirmed in Article 4(3) of the Paris Agreement.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Studies that look at a smaller abatement coalition and/or more ambitious abatement targets (that is, higher unilateral emissions prices) found higher cost savings, which can be traced back to higher initial leakage rates 53 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [53] 53. Böhringer, C., Fischer, C. & Rosendahl, K. E. Cost-effective unilateral climate policy design: size matters. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67, 318-339 (2014). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“unilateral approaches have their pitfalls, as they lack the kind of international cooperation, such as comprehensive emissions trading, that can exploit larger efficiency gains from abating emissions where they are cheapest worldwide.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and foreign EITE industries may also reroute part of their exports to other non-regulated markets.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“however, the difference in effectiveness seems limited 61,62 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [61] 61. Winchester, N. The impact of border carbon adjustments under alternative producer responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 94, 354-359 (2012). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [62] 62. Böhringer, C., Bye, B., Fæhn, T. & Rosendahl, K. E. Targeted carbon tariffs: export response, leakage and welfare. Resour. Energy Econ. 50, 51-73 (2017). source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“BCAs can improve global cost-effectiveness by partially transferring carbon pricing via trade flows to trading partners without emissions pricing policies.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When cast more broadly as uniform percentage tariffs on the imports of outsiders, a carbon club may even induce a large, stable coalition with high levels of abatement 78 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Cooperation or retaliation?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [78] 78. Nordhaus, W. Climate clubs: overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 1339-1370 (2015).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the use of BCA as leverage for country-specific actions, as opposed to leakage prevention, could violate common but differentiated responsibilities principles.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Cooperation or retaliation?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“If only import adjustments are implemented (and not export rebates), welfare gains are somewhat lower 53 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [53] 53. Böhringer, C., Fischer, C. & Rosendahl, K. E. Cost-effective unilateral climate policy design: size matters. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67, 318-339 (2014). source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Numerical simulation studies that incorporate the strategic behaviour of individual countries suggest that import adjustments could coerce a broader international cooperation in emissions pricing under certain conditions [75][76][77] .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Cooperation or retaliation?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [75][76][77]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The results of simulation studies indicate that import adjustments have a strong burden-shifting effect.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the magnitude of the efficiency gains remains limited because only a small fraction of emissions abroad (those that are imported in covered goods) can be targeted”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“but at the same time lose cost-effectiveness because they do not penalize more emissions-intensive foreign production”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [61] 61. Winchester, N. The impact of border carbon adjustments under alternative producer responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 94, 354-359 (2012). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [62] 62. Böhringer, C., Bye, B., Fæhn, T. & Rosendahl, K. E. Targeted carbon tariffs: export response, leakage and welfare. Resour. Energy Econ. 50, 51-73 (2017). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Cost savings may also increase when BCA revenues are used to reduce existing distortionary taxes 67 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [67] 67. McKibbin, W. J., Morris, A. C., Wilcoxen, P. J. & Liu, W. The role of border carbon adjustments in a U.S. carbon tax. Clim. Change Econ. 9, 1840011 (2018). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As BCAs reduce carbon leakage, unilaterally acting regions can scale back the level of domestic emissions pricing required to achieve the same global emissions reduction as without the BCAs.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, a disadvantage of this approach-which effectively subsidizes output-is that carbon costs are not sufficiently passed on to consumers and users of EITE products.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Addressing equity by exempting developing regions, however, could undermine the legitimacy of BCAs 21,72 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] 21. Cosbey, A., Droege, S., Fischer, C. & Munnings, C. Developing guidance for implementing border carbon adjustments: lessons, cautions, and research needs from the literature. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 13, 3-22 (2019). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [72] 72. Mehling, M., Asselt, H., Das, K., Droege, S. & Verkuijl, C. Designing border carbon adjustments for enhanced climate action. Am. J. Int. Law 113, 433-481 (2019). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Import adjustments alone may exacerbate rather than mitigate the negative effects of unilateral emissions pricing for EITE industries that import a large share of border-adjusted embodied carbon and export a large share of their production 65,66 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [65] 65. Burniaux, J. M., Chateau, J. & Duval, R. Is there a case for carbon-based border tax adjustment? An applied general equilibrium analysis. Appl. Econ. 45, 2231-2240 (2013). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [66] 66. Böhringer, C., Müller, A. & Schneider, J. Carbon tariffs revisited. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2, 629-672 (2015). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Import adjustments on embodied carbon applied by richer, industrialized countries are likely to shift some of the burden of emissions pricing to poorer, developing countries 43,56,57,[69][70][71] .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 43,56,57,[69][70][71]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Simulation studies confirm that the cost savings of a BCA, when implemented in a practical manner for EITE industries, are limited 53,64 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [53] 53. Böhringer, C., Fischer, C. & Rosendahl, K. E. Cost-effective unilateral climate policy design: size matters. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67, 318-339 (2014). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [64] 64. Fouré, J., Guimbard, H. & Monjon, S. Border carbon adjustment and trade retaliation: what would be the cost for the European Union? Energy Econ. 54, 349-362 (2016). source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“BCAs based on a default emissions rate as a uniform benchmark are more friendly to national treatment provisions”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [61] 61. Winchester, N. The impact of border carbon adjustments under alternative producer responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 94, 354-359 (2012). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [62] 62. Böhringer, C., Bye, B., Fæhn, T. & Rosendahl, K. E. Targeted carbon tariffs: export response, leakage and welfare. Resour. Energy Econ. 50, 51-73 (2017). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“From a legal perspective, import charges in WTO-compatible BCAs may not be sufficient to bring many pollution-intensive countries into a carbon-pricing coalition 51,78 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Cooperation or retaliation?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [51] 51. Weitzel, M., Hübler, M. & Peterson, S. Fair, optimal or detrimental? Environmental vs. strategic use of border carbon adjustment. Energy Econ. 34, S198-S207 (2012). source
- Not matchedcites [78] 78. Nordhaus, W. Climate clubs: overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 1339-1370 (2015).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At this point, given the large differences in carbon prices, BCA becomes more attractive to ambitious unilateral actors.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared with import adjustments alone, the behind-the-border approach has the advantage of effectively rebating to exports, as exports are exempt from the consumption tax.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A major challenge with approaches that rely on OBR or output-based allocation is what to do when the domestic benchmarks become very low, such that both the rebates and the corresponding consumption taxes lose importance, whereas the burden of higher-cost low-carbon production remains.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Although OBR may be reasonably effective for individual countries, the costs of the output subsidies can exceed the benefit of avoided leakage for larger groups of emissions-pricing countries 53 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [53] 53. Böhringer, C., Fischer, C. & Rosendahl, K. E. Cost-effective unilateral climate policy design: size matters. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67, 318-339 (2014). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the different rebating schemes may seem like attractive alternatives to BCA to avoid trade tensions, they are not a panacea.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A novel approach is to complement OBR with consumption taxes to create a 'behind-the-border' approach that mimics full BCAs with uniform benchmarks 82 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [82] 82. Böhringer, C., Rosendahl, K. E. & Storrøsten, H. B. Robust policies to mitigate carbon leakage. J. Public Econ. 149, 35-46 (2017). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 38
- Probably not a substantial claim. 24
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“It is also worth noting that existing trade policies, although not directly related to climate, affect global emissions: in most countries, import tariff and non-tariff barriers are substantially lower for dirty than for clean industries, which results in an implicit global subsidy to carbon emissions in internationally traded goods 17 .”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [17] 17. Shapiro, J. S. The environmental bias of trade policy. Q. J. Econ. 136, 831-886 (2021). source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Cost-effective climate action calls for coordinated, harmonized carbon pricing across jurisdictions worldwide to reduce carbon emissions where abatement is cheapest 2,3 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Abstract he fundamental challenge in climate policy is to cope with the fact that climate protection constitutes a global public good.Each country has a strong incentive to free-ride on the emissions abatement of other countries while contributing little itself.Without a supranational authority to coerce common action, a 'tragedy of the commons' arises, in which countries' self-interest prevents a globally efficient climate policy.Participation in an international climate treaty has to be voluntary and self-enforcing.As a consequence of free-rider incentives, the voluntary commitments made by countries in the Paris Agreement are insufficient to achieve the Paris target of limiting global warming to well below 2 °C (ref. 1 ).Cost-effective climate action calls for coordinated, harmonized carbon pricing across jurisdictions worldwide to reduce carbon emissions where abatement is cheapest 2,3 .In reality, myriad uncoordinated, unilateral climate policies are leading to a landscape of divergent carbon prices with limited geographical coverage 4,5 .When carbon emissions are priced unilaterally, the global environmental impact will be undermined to the extent that international markets transmit spillover effects that increase emissions in other countries.Dubbed 'carbon leakage' 6-9 , these effects occur primarily via two channels 10 .The fossil fuel market channel transmits leakage when emissions regulations in open economies reduce the demand for fossil fuels, which causes global fossil fuel prices to fall and thus stimulates demand for fossil fuels in unregulated regions.Leakage through the competitiveness channel occurs when unilaterally regulated carbon-intensive businesses reduce production because of higher operating costs, while production by less regulated manufactures abroad increases.Other potential leakage channels, such as international technology spillovers 11 , are also possible but more uncertain, and thus often ignored in quantitative analyses.Carbon leakage raises concerns about the effectiveness of unilateral climate policies.Economists worry that leakage hampers global cost-effectiveness.Representatives of emissions-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) industries in climate-concerned nations point out that leakage results from an undue disadvantage vis-à-vis less regulated competitors abroad.Environmentalists view leakage as an avoidance mechanism-a loophole whereby consumers in developed countries substitute higher-priced domestic products of lower carbon content with imports that are cheaper but more carbon intensive.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [2] 2. Pearce, D. The role of carbon taxes in adjusting to global warming. Econ. J. 101, 938-948 (1991). source
- Supportedcites [3] 3. Weyant, J. Costs of reducing global carbon emissions. J. Econ. Perspect. 7, 27-46 (1993). source
In Common Conclusions (page unavailable), Weyant says international cooperation is important and that international emissions trading lets countries pay for cheaper reductions elsewhere, equalizing marginal control costs across nations. The section also describes a carbon-tax scenario applied by all countries. Together, these support the claim’s broader phrasing about coordinated carbon pricing, though the paper’s clearest cost-saving example is emissions trading. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Recent economic analyses show that the additional consideration of retaliation significantly reduces the appeal of import adjustments as a means to expand climate coalitions and may even risk a detrimental trade war 79,80 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Cooperation or retaliation?
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [79] 79. Böhringer, C. & Rutherford, T.F. Paris after Trump: An Inconvenient Insight CESifo Working Paper 6531 (CESifo, 2017). source
The Introduction and Concluding Remarks say that accounting for retaliatory tariffs makes carbon tariffs an ineffective threat to induce US compliance with the Paris Agreement. The Concluding Remarks also describe a potential tariff war and substantial economic losses, particularly for China. The analysis is specifically about the US, Europe, and China, rather than all climate coalitions. (LLM, conf=0.89)
- Supportedcites [80] 80. Hagen, A. & Schneider, J. Trade sanctions and the stability of climate coalitions. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 109, 102504 (2021). source
The Conclusion states that considering retaliation substantially compromises the appeal of trade sanctions for enlarging climate coalitions. The Introduction notes a threat of trade war in response to import adjustments, and Section 4.2 finds that retaliatory trade distortions can outweigh environmental gains and reduce global welfare. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Economic research reviewed in this Review Article also suggests that the gains from BCA may be limited.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Domestic indirect emissions account for a large share of embodied emissions and for larger differences in emissions intensities across regions (Fig. 1).”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Emissions intensities and trade in embodied carbon
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For 2014, EITE exports of embodied carbon from non-OECD to OECD countries amount to 5.3% of all non-OECD emissions and 7.9% of all OECD (production-based) emissions, respectively.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Emissions intensities and trade in embodied carbon
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Economy-wide CGE studies, which are less detailed at the industry level, report much smaller output repercussions of unilateral emissions pricing than industry-specific (sectoral) partial equilibrium studies; the latter sometimes even found that carbon pricing with BCA can lead to a greater output than in the absence of carbon pricing 45 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [45] 45. Branger, F. & Quirion, P. Would border carbon adjustments prevent carbon leakage and heavy industry competitiveness losses? Insights from a meta-analysis of recent economic studies. Ecol. Econ. 99, 29-39 (2014). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“A common finding of simulation studies is that BCAs level the playing field, and thereby avoid unfair structural change to the detriment of domestic EITE industries 43,64 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [43] 43. Böhringer, C., Balistreri, E. J. & Rutherford, T. F. The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: overview of an Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF 29). Energy Econ. 34, S97-S110 (2012). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [64] 64. Fouré, J., Guimbard, H. & Monjon, S. Border carbon adjustment and trade retaliation: what would be the cost for the European Union? Energy Econ. 54, 349-362 (2016). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Leakage estimates derived from CGE simulations include leakage through the fossil fuel market channel, which tends to dominate leakage through the competitiveness channel 9,10,43,50,51 unless the global supply of fossil fuels is very price inelastic 52,53 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > leakage estimates
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] 9. Felder, S. & Rutherford, T. F. Unilateral CO 2 reductions and carbon leakage: the consequences of international trade in oil and basic materials. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 25, 162-176 (1993). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] 10. Burniaux, J. M. & Oliveira-Martins, J. Carbon leakages: a general equilibrium view. Econ. Theor. 49, 473-495 (2012). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [43] 43. Böhringer, C., Balistreri, E. J. & Rutherford, T. F. The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: overview of an Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF 29). Energy Econ. 34, S97-S110 (2012). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [50] 50. Böhringer, C., Fischer, C. & Rosendahl, K. E. The global effects of subglobal climate policies. B. E. J. Economic Anal. Policy 10, 1-35 (2010). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [51] 51. Weitzel, M., Hübler, M. & Peterson, S. Fair, optimal or detrimental? Environmental vs. strategic use of border carbon adjustment. Energy Econ. 34, S198-S207 (2012). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [52] 52. Boeters, S. & Bollen, J. Fossil fuel supply, leakage and the effectiveness of border measures in climate policy. Energy Econ. 43, S181-S189 (2012). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [53] 53. Böhringer, C., Fischer, C. & Rosendahl, K. E. Cost-effective unilateral climate policy design: size matters. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67, 318-339 (2014). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A recent analysis of California's greenhouse gas pricing programme predicts that differentiated BCAs to electricity imports will be ineffective in curbing carbon leakage because carbon-free resources from other states may be preferentially dispatched to California 63 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Leakage reduction.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [63] 63. Fowlie, M. L., Petersen, C. & Reguant, M. Border carbon adjustments when carbon intensity varies across producers: evidence from California. AEA Papers Proc. 111, 401-405 (2021). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“BCAs face several practical implementation challenges, leading to trade-offs between their effectiveness and compliance with WTO rules 21,22 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Practical implementation constraints
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] 21. Cosbey, A., Droege, S., Fischer, C. & Munnings, C. Developing guidance for implementing border carbon adjustments: lessons, cautions, and research needs from the literature. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 13, 3-22 (2019). source
- Not matchedcites [22] 22. Bierbrauer, F., Felbermayr, G., Ockenfels, A. Schmidt, K. M. & Südekum, J. A CO 2 Border Adjustment as a Building Block of a Climate Club Kiel Policy Brief 151 (Kiel Institute for the World Economy, 2021).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To summarize, trade in embodied carbon between OECD and non-OECD countries is sizeable, with carbon intensities of EITE products being much higher in non-OECD than in OECD countries.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Emissions intensities and trade in embodied carbon
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Requiring individual data with credible third-party verification is probably achievable for direct emissions, but seems prohibitively expensive-if feasible at all-for indirect emissions, which account for the majority of embodied emissions for most EITE goods.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Practical implementation constraints
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among non-OECD countries, China is by far the most important target for import adjustments (Fig. 2); among OECD countries, the EU-27 stands to gain the most from export adjustments (Fig. 3).”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Emissions intensities and trade in embodied carbon
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Omitting export rebates from the BCA scheme tends to reduce effectiveness because rebates avoid leakage from losing EITE market shares abroad; however, for countries that are large net importers of carbon, most of the leakage mitigation comes from import adjustments 43,53 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Leakage reduction.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [43] 43. Böhringer, C., Balistreri, E. J. & Rutherford, T. F. The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: overview of an Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF 29). Energy Econ. 34, S97-S110 (2012). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [53] 53. Böhringer, C., Fischer, C. & Rosendahl, K. E. Cost-effective unilateral climate policy design: size matters. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67, 318-339 (2014). source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Systematic CGE model cross-comparisonssuch as the 29th study by the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) 43 and subsequent meta-analyses of simulation studies [44][45][46] -suggest central estimates of leakage rates for industrialized countries that range from 5% to 30%, which reflects different assumptions on the stringency of carbon pricing, the size of the abatement coalition and the magnitude of trade”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > leakage estimates
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [43] 43. Böhringer, C., Balistreri, E. J. & Rutherford, T. F. The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: overview of an Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF 29). Energy Econ. 34, S97-S110 (2012). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [44] 44. Condon, M. & Ignaciuk, A. Border Carbon Adjustment and International Trade: A Literature Review OECD Trade and Environment Working Paper 2013/06 (OECD, 2013). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [45] 45. Branger, F. & Quirion, P. Would border carbon adjustments prevent carbon leakage and heavy industry competitiveness losses? Insights from a meta-analysis of recent economic studies. Ecol. Econ. 99, 29-39 (2014). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [46] 46. Carbone, J. C. & Rivers, N. The impacts of unilateral climate policy on competitiveness: evidence from computable general equilibrium models. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 11, 24-42 (2017). source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“They found leakage rates that range from 20% to 70% for the cement, aluminium and steel industries, which suggests that a significant portion of emissions reductions in domestic EITE production could be offset by increased emissions abroad 27,54,55 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > leakage estimates
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [27] 27. Fowlie, M. L. & Reguant, M. Mitigating emissions leakage in incomplete carbon markets. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. https://doi. org/10.1086/716765 (2021). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [54] 54. Demailly, D. & Quirion, P. CO 2 abatement, competitiveness and leakage in the European cement industry under the EU ETS: grandfathering versus output-based allocation. Clim. Pol. 6, 93-113 (2006). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] 55. Ponssard, J. P. & Walker, N. EU emissions trading and the cement sector: a spatial competition analysis. Clim. Pol. 8, 467-493 (2008). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The risk of trade conflicts largely explains the reluctance to implement border adjustments to date.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firm-specific BCAs are prone to counterproductive 'reshuffling' , that is, contractual gaming: on the input side, akin to profit shifting through transfer pricing, companies could declare that their less-carbon-intensive inputs (for example, renewable energy credits) are used for the subset of their goods subject to import adjustments; on the output side, emissions-intensive output (for example,”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Leakage reduction.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In policy practice, however, BCA raises concerns about legal feasibility and practical implementation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, much of the embodied carbon comes from indirect emissions, which indicates that the practical implementation of BCA can become quite challenging.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Emissions intensities and trade in embodied carbon
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“BCA could be perceived abroad as a form of protectionism.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“BCA creates a level playing field for Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed (EITE) industries: import adjustments mean that suppliers from countries without domestic carbon pricing also face an increase in carbon costs, so they do not gain an unfair competitive advantage when carbon prices rise.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Appeal of border carbon adjustments
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By capturing emissions embodied in traded goods, it can reduce leakage through the competitiveness channel and improve the global cost-effectiveness of unilateral action-the global economic cost to achieve a given reduction in global emissions.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Appeal of border carbon adjustments
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, export rebates create competitive neutrality in foreign markets.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Appeal of border carbon adjustments
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“BCAs are more likely to comply with WTO law if they mirror the domestic obligations; countries need to provide imports with comparable opportunities for compliance, which include surrendering allowances, credits or offsets.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > legal constraints
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Leakage through the competitiveness channel occurs when unilaterally regulated carbon-intensive businesses reduce production because of higher operating costs, while production by less regulated manufactures abroad increases.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Abstract he fundamental challenge in climate policy is to cope with the fact that climate protection constitutes a global public good.Each country has a strong incentive to free-ride on the emissions abatement of other countries while contributing little itself.Without a supranational authority to coerce common action, a 'tragedy of the commons' arises, in which countries' self-interest prevents a globally efficient climate policy.Participation in an international climate treaty has to be voluntary and self-enforcing.As a consequence of free-rider incentives, the voluntary commitments made by countries in the Paris Agreement are insufficient to achieve the Paris target of limiting global warming to well below 2 °C (ref. 1 ).Cost-effective climate action calls for coordinated, harmonized carbon pricing across jurisdictions worldwide to reduce carbon emissions where abatement is cheapest 2,3 .In reality, myriad uncoordinated, unilateral climate policies are leading to a landscape of divergent carbon prices with limited geographical coverage 4,5 .When carbon emissions are priced unilaterally, the global environmental impact will be undermined to the extent that international markets transmit spillover effects that increase emissions in other countries.Dubbed 'carbon leakage' 6-9 , these effects occur primarily via two channels 10 .The fossil fuel market channel transmits leakage when emissions regulations in open economies reduce the demand for fossil fuels, which causes global fossil fuel prices to fall and thus stimulates demand for fossil fuels in unregulated regions.Leakage through the competitiveness channel occurs when unilaterally regulated carbon-intensive businesses reduce production because of higher operating costs, while production by less regulated manufactures abroad increases.Other potential leakage channels, such as international technology spillovers 11 , are also possible but more uncertain, and thus often ignored in quantitative analyses.Carbon leakage raises concerns about the effectiveness of unilateral climate policies.Economists worry that leakage hampers global cost-effectiveness.Representatives of emissions-intensive and trade-exposed (EITE) industries in climate-concerned nations point out that leakage results from an undue disadvantage vis-à-vis less regulated competitors abroad.Environmentalists view leakage as an avoidance mechanism-a loophole whereby consumers in developed countries substitute higher-priced domestic products of lower carbon content with imports that are cheaper but more carbon intensive.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] 10. Burniaux, J. M. & Oliveira-Martins, J. Carbon leakages: a general equilibrium view. Econ. Theor. 49, 473-495 (2012). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Creating country-specific defaults would conflict with WTO national treatment obligations and require recourse to Article XX.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Practical implementation constraints
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Import adjustments are more likely to pass muster than rebates to exports, but import adjustments that discriminate among 'like' products or attempt to regulate foreign production may need to justify themselves based on an Article XX exception-namely, demonstrate that the measures actually increase the environmental effectiveness of unilateral emissions pricing by reducing carbon leakage.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > legal constraints
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Addressing concerns about unfair competitiveness losses of EITE industries may be a prerequisite for a broader socio-economic acceptance of stringent unilateral emissions pricing.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Appeal of border carbon adjustments
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, an ETS, which can produce equivalent carbon prices, is viewed as a regulatory instrument, for which cross-border reach is typically restricted to product-rather than process-related attributes.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > legal constraints
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clearly, the potentially regressive nature of BCA fosters reservations about the broader implications of using them for international climate policy negotiations.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The short answer is yes, although they have their own drawbacks.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Effectively, BCAs reduce the carbon pricing differential between regions with and without emissions pricing, which reduces efficiency losses from non-uniform carbon pricing.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, the incentives to conserve emissions are weakened and low-carbon substitutes are disadvantaged.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, such sanctions are more likely than BCA to conflict with WTO obligations and induce trade disputes.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Cooperation or retaliation?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To the extent that import prices decrease to absorb some of the incidence of carbon adjustments, exporting countries subject to BCAs will suffer a loss in export revenues, whereas importing countries benefit from an improvement in their terms of trade.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The fact that emissions intensities already vary widely even within industrial sectors 60 increases the risk of reshuffling, which further limits the scope for global effectiveness gains from BCAs.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [60] 60. Lyubich, E., Shapiro, J. S. & Walker, R. Regulating mis-measured pollution: implications of firm heterogeneity for environmental policy. AEA Papers Proc. 108, 136-42 (2018). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Notably, a single benchmark for import charges based on a default emissions rate fails to reflect the heterogeneity in firm-level emissions intensities 60 and does not provide incentives at the level of foreign firms to abate emissions: the only way for foreign firms to avoid import charges is to reduce exports to countries with BCAs.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Leakage reduction.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [60] 60. Lyubich, E., Shapiro, J. S. & Walker, R. Regulating mis-measured pollution: implications of firm heterogeneity for environmental policy. AEA Papers Proc. 108, 136-42 (2018). source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unilateral emissions pricing is far from achieving a globally cost-effective outcome-with or without BCAs.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“BCA proposals have been floated not only as a measure to combat leakage but also as a means to secure greater cooperation: to avoid tariffs, other nations could adopt equivalent emissions pricing 73,74 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Cooperation or retaliation?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [73] 73. Helm, D., Hepburn, C. & Ruta, G. Trade, climate change, and the political game theory of border carbon adjustments. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2, 368-394 (2012). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [74] 74. Al Khourdajie, A. & Finus, M. International environmental agreements and carbon border adjustments. Eur. Econ. Rev. 124, 102405 (2020). source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In international climate negotiations, BCAs could lead countries to reduce their voluntary commitments under the Paris Agreement, which would undermine the strategic value of BCA as a sanctioning instrument.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Cooperation or retaliation?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This option, used in the EU, California, Canada and New Zealand, means that firms can still reduce their carbon payments by reducing their emissions, but they do not bear the full costs of the remaining embodied emissions, which relieves competitiveness pressures.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The basic mechanism is well known from the economic theory on optimal tariffs 68 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Competitiveness.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [68] 68. Limão, N. in New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online 2nd edn (eds Durlauf, S. N. & Blume, L. E.) (Macmillan, 2008). source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of the alternatives can address the fundamental free-rider problem in international climate policy”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whereas BCAs are controversial under current WTO rules, a similar outcome can be achieved through a domestic rebate-tax scheme that is undoubtedly WTO compatible.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the same time, they might be preferred by domestic EITE industries with a high share of imported embodied carbon and a strong export orientation, especially if export rebates are not considered feasible.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The idea is to use OBR to address leakage and competitiveness concerns while adding a tax on the consumption of EITE inputs-a tax that applies equally to domestic and imported goods-to send corrected price signals to the consumers [83][84][85] .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [83][84][85]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From a practical perspective, the scheme is a straightforward extension of existing regulation, such as the output-based allocation to industries at risk of carbon leakage in the EU ETS.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Recent economic research suggests that intensity-based rebates could offer similar protection against leakage and competitiveness losses for EITE industries while lowering the carbon price needed to achieve a given level of emissions reductions 86 .”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [86] 86. Böhringer, C., Fischer, C. & Rivers, N. Intensity-Based Rebating Working Paper 21-37 (RFF, 2021). source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The latter effect can improve political feasibility and reduce carbon price disparity while promoting a faster clean transition.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are also no extra administrative costs in determining the consumption taxes as long as benchmarks for the output-based allocation rates are already set.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, the EU and other countries are planning a course towards net-zero emissions, which means fewer allowances will be freely allocated.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the EU consultations on carbon border adjustment mechanisms are any indication, industry remains reluctant to give up free allocations, even with border adjustments.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Like BCA, they can address leakage only through the competitiveness channel, and they cannot incentivize abatement efforts of individual firms abroad (as firm-specific carbon adjustments would).”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, rebating more to a sector than it is actually incurring in emissions costs is likely to violate the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“however, the risk that rebate-oriented approaches will hinder efforts to achieve multilateral climate cooperation appears low.”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Are there other anti-leakage instruments?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The default emissions rate is higher than the companies' actual emissions.
“(presuming the default emissions rate is higher than the companies' actual emissions)”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The regulating country has lower emissions intensities than its trading partners.
“(assuming lower emissions intensities in the regulating country)”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Leakage reduction.
“found that the BCAs for EITE industries reduce leakage rates by about one-third (from a mean of 12% with a BCA to a mean of 8% without).”
§ Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments > Leakage reduction.
“The common finding is that BCAs are effective in curbing leakage through the competitiveness channel.”
Citations
Cites
Climate Clubs: Overcoming Free-riding in International Climate Policy
Nordhaus, W. (2015) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.15000001 · Cited by 1,362
de Mélo, J., Shoven, J. B., & Whalley, J. (1993) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2234492 · Cited by 1,020
The Role of Carbon Taxes in Adjusting to Global Warming
Pearce, D. (1991) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2233865 · Cited by 1,001
Climate change policy, market structure, and carbon leakage
Babiker, M. H. (2004) · Journal of International Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jinteco.2004.01.003 · Cited by 627
The GTAP Data Base: Version 10
Center for Global Trade Analysis, P. U., Aguiar, A., Chepeliev, M., Corong, E. L., McDougall, R., & van der Mensbrugghe, D. (2019) · Journal of Global Economic Analysis · doi:10.21642/jgea.040101af · Cited by 551
Global environmental problems: The effects of unilateral actions taken by one country
Hoel, M. (1991) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Management · doi:10.1016/0095-0696(91)90023-c · Cited by 516
International externalities and optimal tax structures
Markusen, J. R. (1975) · Journal of International Economics · doi:10.1016/0022-1996(75)90025-2 · Cited by 472
Comparing policies to combat emissions leakage: Border carbon adjustments versus rebates
Fischer, C., & Fox, A. K. (2012) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Management · doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2012.01.005 · Cited by 425
Self-citationBöhringer, C., Balistreri, E. J., & Rutherford, T. F. (2012) · Energy Economics · doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2012.10.003 · Cited by 387
Self-citationKyoto and Carbon Leakage: An Empirical Analysis of the Carbon Content of Bilateral Trade
Aichele, R., & Felbermayr, G. (2015) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_00438 · Cited by 378
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Limão, N. in New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online 2nd edn (eds Durlauf, S. N. & Blume, L. E.) (Macmillan, 2008).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
EU in search of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism
Bellora, C., & Fontagné, L. (2023) · Energy Economics · doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106673 · Cited by 280
Impacts of the CBAM on EU trade partners: consequences for developing countries
Magacho, G., Espagne, É., & Godin, A. (2023) · Climate Policy · doi:10.1080/14693062.2023.2200758 · Cited by 217
“In the end, as noted by Böhringer et al. (2022), the CBAM raises more concerns about legal feasibility (see also Tamiotti, 2011) and practical implementation than about fundamental theory.”
BackgroundInfluentialBorder Carbon Adjustment: A Systematic Literature Review of Latest Developments
Zhong, J., & Pei, J. (2022) · Climate Policy · doi:10.1080/14693062.2023.2190074 · Cited by 157
“Finally, a recently published review also falls in the narrative paradigm on the potential environmental and economic impacts of CBAM measures (Böhringer et al., 2022).”
BackgroundEnergy and sustainable development nexus: A review
Pan, X., Shao, T., Zheng, X., Zhang, Y., Ma, X., & Zhang, Q. (2023) · Energy Strategy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.esr.2023.101078 · Cited by 158
Beaufils, T., Ward, H., Jakob, M., et al. (2023) · Communications Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43247-023-00788-4 · Cited by 105
Metadata
- Authors
- Böhringer, C., Fischer, C., Rosendahl, K. E., & Rutherford, T. F.
- Affiliations
- World Bank (US)
- Statistics Norway (NO)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Venue
- Nature Climate Change
- Published
- 2022-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 22-29
- ISSN
- 1758-678X (ISSN-L)
- 1758-6798
- OpenAlex
- W4205253549
- Semantic Scholar
- 14d9cea221cb7ef4e55654977a9520b0d97643e9
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 79
- Citations by year
- 2026: 67 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 22
- FWCI
- 44.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2022-01-31)
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Nature Climate Change (publishedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
- Social Sciences › Law › EU Law and Policy Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
- Keywords
- border carbon adjustment, carbon leakage, competitiveness, climate policy, trade policy, carbon pricing, implementation barriers
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
