Steel Industry Faces Carbon Hurdle

May 21, 2009

Email this story Print this post Add your comments

The U.S. steel industry in general, and U.S. Steel Corp., AK Steel, ArcelorMittal SA and OAO Severstal in particular, which operate carbon-intensive integrated mills, could be hurt under a carbon-emissions cap and trade system, WSJ reports.

To pay for emissions, they will be forced to raise prices or, in order to reduce their carbon footprint, produce less steel.

The industry sees a third option. It’s lobbying to get credit for the fact that it has reduced carbon emissions since the 1990s. But the Journal says the reason emissions are down is because of “the growing production of steel made by minimills, which melt down scrap steel into new steel” and emit about 66% less carbon.

The U.S. Steel industry has reduced its energy intensity per ton of steel shipped by about 33 percent since 1990 – an improvement on the 29-percent reduction reported in 2006, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute

The worst outcome of cap and trade, according to the industry, would see integrated steel operations move to developing nations where they wouldn’t face carbon restrictions.

According to a recent report from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, an organization that supports a cap on emissions, Industries with energy costs exceeding 10 percent of shipment value, (e.g., metal foundries, cement, and lime) would expect output declines of about 4 percent and consumption declines of 3 percent, associated with a $15 per ton CO2 price, suggesting a 1 percent shift overseas. The report actually finds other industries hurt more – output declines of 3.4 percent in bulk glass, and 3.3 percent in paper, associated with a $15 per ton CO2 price.

(story continues below)

pewsteel

But it’s not just the U.S. steel industry that’s feeling the heat. This month, EUROFER, the European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries, released its Manifesto of the European steel industry for Members of the European Parliament 2009 – 2014.

According to the Manifesto, “Without a level playing field in climate change policy, non-EU steel-making competitors will enjoy an unfair competitive advantage that will distort the global market for steel and restrict future investment in the EU, leading to carbon leakage.”

The group wants non-EU steel producers to commit themselves to “equal, verifiable and enforceable CO2 reduction targets within the framework of an international agreement on climate change that will cover at least 85% of world steel production.”

“As China alone accounts for about 500 million tonnes (35%), its full participation in
any international agreement is indispensable,” the document states.

Until such an agreement is implemented, the document says that the “EU must mitigate ETS-related costs for sectors at risk of carbon leakage by continuing to allocate 100% of emissions allowances for free.”

Recently, Reuters reported that European steel companies were awarded far more carbon credits than they needed and have reaped a windfall in profits. Steelmakers received a surplus of credits worth about $1.2 billion, based on 2008 carbon prices.

Windfalls may be coming to other areas of the globe too. Rio Tinto is likely to be the biggest recipient of public support under the Australian Federal Government’s carbon trading scheme. Free carbon permits worth $462 million are expected to flow to the company in 2010.

As in the U.S., the threat of EU steel giants moving abroad has been reported. In December, Philippe Varin, chief executive of Corus Group Ltd., the U.K. unit of India’s Tata Steel Ltd., threatened to move the company’s European operations to China “if we are forced to buy CO2 credits on the market without a system to improve our production process.”

Also last year, lawyers for steel giant ArcelorMittal told Europe’s highest court that there was no justification for EU lawmakers to exclude the aluminum and chemical industries from 2003 legislation that capped CO2 emissions and that the exclusion puts the steel sector at a “complete disadvantage.”

EU officials have acknowledged that tightening greenhouse gas emissions will take a toll on the competiveness of some heavy industries – in the past considering a carbon tariff on goods from countries whose emission policies aren’t as strong as Europe’s.

Email this story Print this post Add your comments

Advertisers

Make sustainability part of your strategy.

Get equipped at the SAP Sustainability Resource Center. >>

Unclear about the EPA's new GHG Rule?

Learn how it could affect your business. >>

EPA mandatory emissions reporting starts Jan 1st

CSA Standards can help your organization get ready for compliance. Find out how. >>

Best Practices: Product Environmental Compliance

How to achieve compliance at a significantly lower cost. Download the full report. >>

Join the Discussion

Reader Comments

Before we chase our steel industry out of the country with cap-and-trade and increase the cost of energy and enrich a new class of financial traders, I believe it’s imperative that the United States establishes a non-political, scientific commission to review all facts and evidence surrounding global warming. Currently, we are relying upon a political organization, the United Nations, for their assessment of global warming. This is not good for America. The stakes are too huge.

I am a Democrat. For the past 20 years I believed global warming was caused by CO2. Now I’m not so sure, after taking an objective look at the wellspring of man-made global warming theory, the United Nations’ Climate Change 2007 report. Whereas the report should have considered all possible global warming culprits then narrow the field, it instead removed from consideration the possibility that natural forces might drive global warming. It is little wonder that the report pinned the blame on CO2 when in their own words (p. 95), “The topics have been chosen for…assessing…risks of human-induced climate change.” The fix was in. It was politics not science. The mission statement should have read, “Topics have been chosen for assessing risks of human-induced and NATURE-INDUCED climate change.” Remember, the UN developed in Kyoto Protocol. They have a vested in demonizing CO2. For further discussion of the report see
http://energyplanusa.com/ipcc_reports_dont_pass_smell_test.htm

Rmoen | May 21st, 2009

You should also mention the efforts the steel industry has put into keeping the canned food business alive. I made a short film about their cute character Sniffles the Rat and his attempt to push canned food on little kids. View it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXhHYPgHYEo&feature=channel_page

GreenScreenCinema | June 10th, 2009

Recent Daily News [ see all ]

11/20/2009
11/19/2009
11/18/2009

Charts [ see all ]

European Paper Industry Cuts CO2 Emissions by 42% since 1990

S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks

Nike Tops Annual Climate Action Scores

Oceans May Trap more Carbon than Forests

Jobs

View All Jobs >> Post a Job >>

Comments and Discussions

Trade Association on Trade Group on EPA Chemical Regs: ‘If Everything is a Priority, Then Nothing is a Priority’
"Seriously… that..."

Gary Markowitz on Supermarkets Tackle Emissions Reductions, Fuel Efficiency
"Supermarkets waste over 10 percent of their energy through improper..."

peter in ireland on Ontario May Follow California’s Lead on TV Energy Efficiency
"Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot! 1...."

Environmental Leader on S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
"The survey respondents (the PDF report mentions 4,000 respondents in 38..."

Jake on UPS Trying New Hydraulic Hybrid Trucks
"A point of clarification: the Reuters press release referenced herein reports that 20 UPS will purchase..."

Custom Organic Shirts on S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
"90% of North Americans believe it is urgent to get a global climate..."

peter dublin on California City’s Green Building Ordinance Applies to Commercial Buildings
"Why energy efficiebnt regulation on buildings –..."

Environmental Leader