Cited by 10Climate Change Policy and EconomicsSustainable Development and PoliciesIron and Steelmaking Processes

A green COVID-19 recovery of the EU basic materials sector: identifying potentials, barriers and policy solutions

Open access
Chiappinelli, Olga, Gerres, Timo, Neuhoff, Karsten, Lettow, Frederik, de Coninck, Heleen, Felsmann, Balázs, Joltreau, Eugénie, Khandekar, Gauri +7 more·2021·Climate Policy

Abstract

This paper explores climate-friendly projects that could be part of the COVID-19 recovery while jump-starting the transition of the European basic materials industry. Findings from a literature review on technology options in advanced development stages for climate-friendly production, enhanced sorting, and recycling of steel, cement, aluminium, and plastics, are combined with insights from interviews with 31 European stakeholders in these sectors about the practical and economic feasibility of these technology options. Results indicate that with an estimated investment of 28.9 billion Euros, up to 20% of EU’s basic materials could be produced through low-emission processes or additional recycling by 2025 with technologies that are commercially available or at pilot scale today. However, our stakeholder consultation also shows that in order to make these short-term investments viable, six main barriers need to be addressed, namely: (i) the lack of effective and predictable carbon pricing, (ii) the limited availability of affordable green electricity, (iii) the lack of a regulatory framework for circularity, (iv) low technology market readiness and funding, (v) the lack of infrastructure for hydrogen, CO2 and power, and (vi) the lack of demand for climate-friendly and recycled materials. Based on these insights, the paper proposes elements of a policy package that can create a framework favourable for investments in these technologies; these policies should ideally accompany the recovery package to give credibility to investors that the business case will last beyond the recovery period.Key policy insights Technologies for climate-friendly materials production, sorting and recycling can be supported as part of the recovery package but require an enabling policy framework.Combining continued free allocation with a Climate Contribution within the EU ETS can enhance economic viability of climate-friendly options.Project-based Carbon Contracts for Difference can eliminate carbon price uncertainty for climate-friendly processes.Auctions for publicly backed Contracts for Difference and Power Purchasing Agreements can guarantee price-stability of low-emission electricity.Green public procurement and public-private partnerships can provide infrastructure for hydrogen, CO2 and electricity while creating demand for climate-friendly materials.Revising regulations on product design and end-of-life emissions can improve sorting and recycling incentives.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14693062.2021.1922340

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Revenues from the climate excise contribution can be earmarked for upstream support of decarbonization, for example with carbon contracts for difference for clean production.

    “The revenues from the climate excise contribution can be earmarked for upstream support of decarbonization, for example with CCfDs for clean production (117).”

    From Carbon Leakage, Consumption, and Trade (2022) · cites this paper as [117]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 53 · Cited by 10

Authors
Chiappinelli, O., Gerres, T., Neuhoff, K., Lettow, F., de Coninck, H., Felsmann, B., Joltreau, E., Khandekar, G., Linares, P., Richstein, J., Śniegocki, A., Stede, J., Wyns, T., Zandt, C., & Zetterberg, L.
Affiliations
  • German Institute for Economic Research (DE)
  • Universidad Pontificia Comillas (ES)
  • Technology Innovation and Society Group, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands
  • Corvinus University of Budapest (HU)
  • Université Paris Sciences et Lettres (FR)
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
  • WiseEuropa (PL)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute (CN)
Corresponding author
Chiappinelli, Olga
Venue
Climate Policy
Published
2021-05-18
Volume
21
Issue
10
Pages
1328-1346
ISSN
  • 1469-3062 (ISSN-L)
  • 1752-7457
OpenAlex
W3106548392
Cited by
10
References
53
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4
FWCI
1.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Climate Policy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Figshare (cc-by)
Funders
  • European Climate Foundation
  • C4U
  • Horizon 2020 (884418)
  • Mistra Carbon ExitSwedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research through the Mistra Carbon Exit Program
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Sustainable Development and Policies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Iron and Steelmaking Processes
Keywords
COVID-19 economic recovery, basic materials sector, circular economy, steel recycling, cement recycling, aluminum recycling, plastic recycling, carbon pricing, EU Emissions Trading System, green public procurement, public-private partnerships, hydrogen infrastructure, investment barriers, policy packages, European Union

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.

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