China has sharply criticised the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), describing aspects of the scheme as discriminatory and misaligned with the country’s green development progress.
The statement came from the Ministry of Commerce (Mofcom) on January 1, coinciding with the formal entry into force of CBAM. Mofcom highlighted several concerns, including the methodology for setting default carbon emission intensity values, which the EU plans to increase annually over the next three years.
The ministry also voiced objections to planned expansions of CBAM. Draft legislation extending the scheme from 2028 would bring roughly 180 downstream steel- and aluminum-intensive products into scope, spanning machinery, automotive components, and household appliances. According to Mofcom, such extensions exceed the climate-focused objectives of CBAM and introduce elements of unilateralism and trade protectionism.
China’s criticism emphasizes potential violations of World Trade Organization principles, specifically “most-favored-nation” and “national treatment” obligations. The ministry framed CBAM’s implementation as inconsistent with global trade norms, warning that the EU’s regulatory design could provoke “serious concern and firm opposition” from Beijing.
Mofcom also pointed to perceived contradictions in EU policy. While the bloc imposes external carbon pricing and border measures, it recently revised its 2035 ban on internal combustion engine vehicles, effectively easing emissions standards for domestic producers. “On the one hand, the EU engages in protectionism externally under the banner of green policies; on the other hand, it relaxes internal regulation and lowers emissions reduction requirements,” the spokesperson said, calling the policy approach a “typical example of double standards.”
China’s statement underscores ongoing tensions between major trading partners over the intersection of climate policy and global trade. CBAM is central to the EU’s strategy to prevent carbon leakage, ensuring imported goods meet the bloc’s environmental standards. However, Beijing’s response reflects broader concerns that unilateral climate measures could distort trade flows and undermine multilateral agreements, particularly if default emission values do not reflect actual production realities.
