![icmm_the_cost_of_carbon_pricing.jpg](/sites/default/files/styles/featured_box_portrait_mobile/public/publication/icmm_the_cost_of_carbon_pricing.jpg?h=f214ce63&itok=fm9Ppgmm)
The Cost of Carbon Pricing: Competitiveness implications for the mining and metals industry
This report, commissioned by the International Council for Mining and Metals (ICMM), assesses how best to develop carbon pricing policies that achieve a transition to a low-carbon economy without compromising the ability of national industries to compete internationally.
The assessment is based on a survey of the current policy environment, new research quantifying the impacts of climate change policies on member companies, a series of interviews with members, and an assessment of policies based on ICMM's "principles for climate change" policy design.The geographic regions analyzed include the European Union, South Africa, Australia, Canada and the U.S., as well as subnational jurisdictions within the U.S. and Canada, namely California, Quebec and British Columbia.Four commodities are included in the analysis: iron ore, copper, aluminum and coal. These commodities encompass a range of widely produced/used outputs and a variety of extraction and production techniques in many locations across the globe.
Participating experts
You might also be interested in
Watts in Store Part 2
Creating an enabling environment for grid battery deployment in South Africa while maximizing key benefits and minimizing social and environmental risks.
What Makes Minerals and Metals "Critical"?
Exploring how governments define what should be considered as "strategic" or "critical" based on a series of objective criteria.
Rethinking Investment Treaties
International investment treaties and their investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) system are facing growing scrutiny. But what would an alternative system—one fit for the challenges of the 21st century—look like?
Ecuador Referendum Rules Out ISDS Return, Underlining Public Support for a Sustainable Path
Ecuador has voted to allow international arbitration and investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) in its treaties and agreements. But the risks that initially made them turn away from this outdated model remain.