The European Union is poised to implement carbon tariffs starting January 1, marking a significant shift in international climate policy. This initiative targets countries lagging in carbon emissions reductions, introducing financial penalties that will aim to hold companies accountable for their environmental impact.
Countries affected by these carbon taxes are expressing discontent, as tensions rise around the EU’s carbon border tariffs, officially labeled under the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. Anticipate trade disputes, but these taxes are expected to persist, with analysts like Ellie Belton from E3G predicting global adoption of similar measures.
Belton notes, “We can foresee carbon border adjustment mechanisms emerging globally.” The UK is set to implement its version by 2027, with countries such as Australia, Canada, and Taiwan also contemplating the adoption of carbon tariffs.
The EU’s carbon border tax extends the existing carbon pricing framework established in 2005. Since then, EU industries with high carbon emissions have been subject to costs associated with carbon allowances under the emissions trading system. Currently, the carbon price stands at approximately 76 euros per tonne of CO2.
This pricing disparity means EU steel producers face higher costs compared to their counterparts in nations without carbon pricing. The newly introduced tariffs strive to level the playing field, adjusting import tariffs to align with internal EU carbon prices.
For countries already employing carbon pricing, the EU will impose only the price difference on imports. Besides steel, other industries affected by border taxes include iron, aluminum, cement, fertilizer, hydrogen, and electricity.
The primary goal is to prevent carbon leakage, where industries relocate to jurisdictions with less stringent environmental regulations. “The EU insists on no exemptions, as these would create pollution havens,” Belton emphasizes.
Additionally, this policy aims to encourage global efforts in reducing carbon emissions. Countries like Brazil and Türkiye have already implemented their own carbon pricing mechanisms in response to the EU’s initiative.
In 2023, the EU finalized plans for the carbon border adjustment mechanism, launching a pilot scheme in October that required businesses to declare emissions. Effective January 1, companies will begin accruing charges, gradually increasing until full implementation by 2034.
British firms are anticipated to avoid taxation under the UK’s own carbon border adjustment mechanism as negotiations continue to ensure compatibility with EU regulations.
Ideally, a unified carbon border adjustment system across nations would enhance economic influence and comparative power in global forums. However, Belton foresees a fragmented landscape of varied carbon pricing approaches worldwide.
The perception that video games lack seriousness fails to recognize the benefits they provide to gamers who often feel disconnected.
“During the Covid pandemic, I realized that games serve as a vital means for people to connect and maintain relationships.”
Ross Simmons, CEO of Big Ali Studios, a Melbourne-based game development firm, recalls Tony Abbott’s dismissal of the national broadband network in 2010 when he referred to it as merely “internet-based television, video entertainment, and gaming.”
Simmons asserts that the industry’s marginalization has not endured over time.
Data from the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association (IGEA) indicates that Australians invested $3.8 billion in video games in the past year. Although this sector remains smaller compared to major development countries like Canada, it is gradually evolving.
In 2023, the Australian government introduced the Digital Game Tax Offset (DGTO), enabling local developers to claim a 30% refundable income tax offset for creating or porting games in Australia. This policy is applicable to companies that spend a minimum of $500,000 on development in Australia, with a cap of $20 million per company.
Ron Curry, CEO of IGEA, reports that the Australian gaming industry employed approximately 1,300 individuals between 2020 and 2021.
Industry experts believe that the government’s tax offsets and rebates are drawing international developers and fostering local talent.
Photo: Assanka Brendon Ratnayake/Guardian
The Game Development sector in Australia now employs 2,465 full-time staff and generated $3399.1 million in revenue for the fiscal year 2023-24. “This reflects nearly a 100% rise in employment and an approximate 85% increase in revenue,” he notes.
“The DGTO has activated numerous avenues. Previously, Australia was one of the most expensive places to develop games and the only developed nation lacking rebates or offsets. We have corrected this to align ourselves with other developed nations.”
Sign up: AU Breaking News Email
Curry expresses confidence in the industry, indicating that government support, along with state and territorial grants, has signified Australia as a “healthy environment for operation,” fostering trust among investors, game publishers, and prospective employees.
Interstate Competition and Legacy Building
Serge Xebian, a partner at Playlight Consulting which advises gaming firms on financial matters, states that the offset has substantially benefited companies hiring in Australia, spurring momentum in the sector.
“International studios are increasingly aware of this, particularly those with existing ties to Australian vendors. Now, many are actively looking toward Australia. My clients’ suggestions are rapidly moving up the agenda.”
Xebian notes that while New South Wales was once a film haven, Victoria now stands out as a game development center, although competition is intensifying. Queensland offers a 15% rebate in addition to the federal benefits, with a threshold set at $250,000, while Victoria’s rebates range from 10% to 15%, based on investment level, with a $500,000 threshold.
“We are seeing many independent game studios relocating to Queensland,” observes Xebian.
French game developer Gameloft inaugurated a studio in Brisbane in 2014, responsible for reviving the famous character Carmen Sandiego on Netflix, Xbox, PlayStation, PC, and Nintendo Switch this year.
Manea Castett, head of the Brisbane studio, reminisces about playing Carmen Sandiego games with his father, describing the character’s persona as both thrilling and adventurous. He appreciates the opportunity to reimagine the game and provide players with a “fun twist” on Sandiego’s adventures.
Castett mentions that their Brisbane studio stands out within the company for its rapid growth, expanding from 55 staff two years ago to 217 today. He highlights their ability to develop two games simultaneously, enabling a more comprehensive approach to game design, technology, audio, quality assurance, and marketing.
“Globally, the landscape is shifting… there remains significant revenue potential. The Australian video game industry is on the rise.”
Development challenges
Big Ali’s studio became the center of a controversy during the launch of Rugby League 26 in July when users reported game bugs, which included incorrect jersey numbers and server issues that hampered gameplay.
Simmons described the day patches were deployed to enhance the game as “very satisfying,” explaining that the near deadline for release aligned with the NRL season forced hasty changes.
Simmons noted that Big Ant Studio’s latest rugby title temporarily overwhelmed its online servers, achieving sales over six times their anticipations. Photo: Assanka Brendon Ratnayake/Guardian
“In the week prior to the release, we implemented 1,200 changes, many of which involved alterations due to sponsorships related to betting, alcohol, and other elements,” he explains, describing the challenges involved.
Logos of gambling and alcohol companies present on player jerseys in real life were removed from the game due to increasing concerns about promoting these products to underage audiences. Simmons believes that they underestimated the game’s demand on launch day, which sold six times their initial projections, causing server issues they eventually addressed.
Before the tax offsets were introduced, Big Ant had around 50 employees; now, with the growth fueled by these initiatives, they expanded to 147. Simmons states, “This enables us to compete globally.”
The tight job market, wherein game development skills are sought after across diverse sectors including artificial intelligence, further complicates their growth trajectory.
Curry notes that while the industry boasts transferable skills that participants take pride in, it must vie for talent. Ensuring safe jobs, competitive salaries, and an immigration framework that attracts skilled professionals will aid in recruitment, he adds.
“Integrating senior talent into the country serves as an accelerator for the people they mentor,” he remarks. “In Canada, you can bring developers into the country in as little as two weeks. We’ve witnessed instances of individuals taking over two years to enter Australia.”
“In a fast-paced industry, such delays are problematic.”
US Republicans are advocating for the approval of significant spending legislation that contains measures to thwart states from implementing regulations on artificial intelligence. Experts caution that the unchecked expansion of AI could exacerbate the planet’s already perilous, overheating climates.
Research from Harvard University indicates that the industry’s massive energy consumption is finite, and carbon dioxide—amounting to around 1 billion tonnes according to the Guardian—is projected to be emitted in the US by AI over the next decade.
During this ten-year span, when Republicans aim to “suspend” state-level regulations on AI, there will be a substantial amount of electricity consumed in data centers for AI applications, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions in the US that surpass those of Japan. Every year, the emissions will be three times higher than those of the UK.
The actual emissions will rely on the efficiency of power plants and the degree of clean energy utilization in the coming years; however, the obstruction of regulations will also play a part, noted Genruka Guidi, a visiting scholar at Harvard’s School of Public Health.
“Restricting surveillance will hinder the shift away from fossil fuels and diminish incentives for more energy-efficient AI technologies,” Guidi stated.
“We often discuss what AI can do for us, but we rarely consider its impact on our planet. If we genuinely aim to leverage AI to enhance human welfare, we mustn’t overlook the detrimental effects on climate stability and public health.”
Donald Trump has declared that the United States will become the “world capital of artificial intelligence and crypto,” planning to eliminate safeguards surrounding AI development while dismantling regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
The “Big Beautiful” spending bill approved by Republicans in the House of Representatives would prevent states from adopting their own AI regulations, with the GOP-controlled Senate also likely to pass a similar version.
However, the unrestricted usage of AI may significantly undermine efforts to combat the climate crisis while increasing power usage from the US grid. The dependence on fossil fuels like gas and coal continues to grow. AI is particularly energy-intensive, with a single query on ChatGPT consuming about ten times more power than a Google search.
The carbon emissions from US data centers have increased threefold since 2018, with recent Harvard research indicating that the largest “hyperscale” centers constitute 2% of the nation’s electricity usage.
“AI is poised to transform our world,” states Manu Asthana, CEO of PJM Interconnection, the largest grid in the US. Predictions suggest that nearly all increases in future electricity demand will arise from data centers. Asthana asserts this will equate to adding a new home’s worth of electricity to the grid every five years.
Quick Guide
Please contact us about this story
show
The best public interest journalism relies on direct accounts from people of knowledge.
If you have anything to share about this subject, please contact us with a secret using the following methods:
Secure Messages in Guardian App
The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end-to-end encrypted and implied within the routine activity that all Guardian mobile apps perform. This prevents observers from knowing you are in absolutely communication with us.
If you don’t already have the Guardian app, please download it (iOS/Android) and go to the menu. Select Secure Message.
For alternatives and the advantages and disadvantages of each, please refer to the guide at guardian.com/tips.
Illustration: Guardian Design / Rich Cousins
Meanwhile, the rapid escalation of AI is intensifying the recent rollback of climate pledges made by major tech companies. Last year, Google acknowledged that greenhouse gas emissions from AI have surged by 48% since 2019 due to its advances. In effect, the deeper AI penetrates, “reducing emissions may prove challenging.”
Supporters of AI, along with some researchers, contend that advancements in AI could aid the fight against climate change by enhancing the efficiency of grid management and other improvements. Others, however, remain skeptical. “It’s merely an operation for greenwashing, and it’s clear as day,” critiques Alex Hanna, research director at the Institute of Decentralized AI. “Much of what we’ve heard is absolutely ridiculous. Big tech is mortgaging the present for a future that may never materialize.”
So far, no states have definitive regulations regarding AI, but state lawmakers may be aiming to establish such rules, especially in light of diminished federal environmental regulations. This could prompt Congress to reevaluate the ban. “If you were anticipating federal regulations around data centers, that’s definitely off the table right now,” Hanna observed. “It’s rather surprising to observe everything.”
But Republican lawmakers are undeterred. The proposed moratorium on local regulations for states and AI recently cleared a significant hurdle in the Senate over the weekend, as I’ve determined that this ban will allow Trump taxes and megavilles to proceed. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, chairing the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, has prohibited modifications to the language which would prevent spending bills from addressing “foreign issues.”
This clause entails a “temporary suspension” on regulations, substituting a moratorium. It additionally includes an extra $500 million to grant programs aimed at expanding nationwide broadband internet access, stipulating that states will not receive these funds should they attempt to regulate AI.
The suggestion to suspend AI regulations has raised significant alarm among Democrats. Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, known for his climate advocacy, has indicated his readiness to propose amendments that would strip the bill of its “dangerous” provisions.
“The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence is already impacting our environment—raising energy prices for consumers, straining the grid’s capacity to maintain lighting, depleting local water resources, releasing toxic pollutants into our communities, and amplifying climate emissions,” Markey shared with the Guardian.
“But Republicans want to prohibit AI regulations for ten years, rather than enabling the nation to safeguard its citizenry and our planet. This is shortsighted and irresponsible.”
Massachusetts Assemblyman Jake Ochincross also labeled the proposal as “terrible and unpopular ideas.”
“I believe we must recognize that it is profoundly reckless to allow AI to swiftly and seamlessly fill various sectors such as healthcare, media, entertainment, and education while simultaneously imposing a ban on AI regulations for a decade,” he commented.
Some Republicans also oppose these provisions, including Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn and Missouri Senator Josh Hawley. The amendment to eliminate the suspension from the bill requires the backing of at least four Republican senators.
Hawley is reportedly ready to propose amendments to remove this provision later in the week if they are not ruled out beforehand.
Earlier this month, Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene admitted that she overlooked the provisions in the House’s bill, stating she would not support the legislation if she had been aware. Greene’s group, the Far-Right House Freedom Caucus, stands against the suspension of AI regulations.
Over the last two decades, more than 5 million U.S. households, stretching from California to Georgia and Maine, have installed solar panels on their rooftops, harnessing solar energy and cutting down on electricity costs.
However, this progress may be abruptly halted.
A recent domestic policy bill approved by House Republicans aims to cut tax incentives for homeowners and solar leasing companies, which have significantly contributed to the rise in rooftop solar adoption, by the end of this year. Analysts and industry experts warn that if this legislation is enacted, it would result in an immediate slowdown in installations.
Ben Airth, policy director at Freedom Forever, one of the largest residential solar installers in the country, stated, “This is setting us back.” He remembers a time when solar installations were primarily undertaken by wealthy environmentalists preparing for retirement.
According to an analysis from energy data firm Ohm Analysis, residential solar installations could decline by 50% next year if the House bill is enacted. Without tax credits, homeowners would take an average of 17 years to recoup their solar investments. A more pessimistic forecast from Morgan Stanley predicts an 85% decrease in rooftop solar demand by 2030.
Republicans also seek to limit tax breaks for other renewable energy technologies, such as wind turbines and large solar farms, but the repercussions for rooftop solar could prove to be even more drastic. Rooftop solar costs 2-3 times more per unit of power than large solar arrays installed on agricultural land and in deserts, making the residential sector more susceptible to subsidy alterations.
The Senate is currently drafting its version of the domestic policy bill, while solar industry executives are lobbying in Washington for more progressive energy credit initiatives. They emphasize that the solar sector currently employs around 300,000 workers and that rooftop systems significantly reduce homeowners’ electricity expenses.
Nonetheless, some conservative Republicans are explicitly opposed to any restoration of renewable energy tax incentives.
Texas Republican Chip Roy criticized, stating, “We’re devastating our energy infrastructure, wrecking our grid, ruining our landscapes, and compromising our freedoms.” He added, “I don’t support that.”
The existing uncertainty is jeopardizing an industry that is already grappling with high tariffs and soaring interest rates. Last week, Solar Mosaic announced it would provide loans for homeowners to install rooftop panels, following its bankruptcy declaration. Recently, Sunnova Energy, one of the largest rooftop solar providers in the U.S., followed suit.
Experts suggest that even if rooftop solar ultimately becomes unsubsidized, rising electricity prices nationwide could still make solar energy more financially appealing. Nevertheless, the transition may be challenging, likely resulting in increased bankruptcies and layoffs.
Zoe Gaston, a leading analyst for residential solar at Wood Mackenzie, mentioned, “But that market will inevitably be smaller.”
Significant Tax Revisions
For the past 20 years, Congress has provided tax credits for the installation of solar panels on rooftops. However, these subsidies faced major reductions through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which allocated hundreds of billions of dollars toward technology aimed at tackling climate change.
The legislation has extended the residential solar credit, allowing homeowners to recoup 30% of their solar system costs until 2032. It has also broadened the Investment Tax Credit for businesses constructing low-emission power sources like solar and battery technologies.
These changes have led to a surge in solar leases, allowing homeowners to avoid upfront costs for rooftop systems that can exceed $30,000. Instead, the solar company owns the panels and applies for tax credits, while homeowners lease the equipment and ideally save money through lower utility bills.
Currently, over 50% of residential solar systems are financed in this manner, making rooftop solar more attainable for schools, hospitals, and small businesses.
Moreover, the House bill forbids businesses from claiming tax credits if they utilize components sourced from China, which dominates the solar supply chain. Many companies have expressed that the legislation is written so broadly that it would inhibit their ability to claim credits effectively.
Gregg Felton, CEO of Altus Power, which develops solar projects for rooftops and parking lots, remarked that the House bill “adequately represents the industry’s impact.”
If Congress significantly cuts support for renewable energy, experts predict that companies will still invest in large solar arrays, as they frequently represent one of the most cost-effective methods to increase energy generation, even without subsidies. Conversely, rooftop solar remains more expensive, requires more labor, and carries greater risks.
Kenny Plannenstiel, COO of Big Dog Solar, an Idaho-based installation firm, noted that rooftop solar has gained traction in emerging markets like Montana and Idaho.
“There is substantial interest among those wanting to take control of their energy future, as well as among those concerned about grid reliability,” Pfannenstiel added. With the tax credit in place, “the financial argument for these customers installing solar and battery systems has become much stronger,” he explained.
If the credits disappear, some customers may still desire solar panels, Pfannenstiel noted, but the market will “shrink significantly.”
The repercussions could be far-reaching. If a solar leasing company goes under, there may be no one left to service the solar panels, resulting in job losses for thousands of installers and electricians.
In recent years, over 30 solar plants have commenced operations in the U.S., but a slowdown in demand could lead to their closure.
Freedom Forever, a California-based solar installer, noted that two years ago, none of their components were sourced from the U.S.; now, approximately 85% are, including inverters manufactured in Texas and Florida. This shift is driven by the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided extra credits for utilizing domestic components.
Without these credits, Airth cautioned, “the industry will revert to relying on the lowest-cost components, often produced overseas.”
Debates Over Rooftop Solar
The fight for tax credits in Congress is not the sole hurdle for rooftop solar. While the technology remains favored by homeowners, certain states are starting to retract support amidst considerable backlash.
Electric utilities and some analysts argue that rooftop solar users increase costs for everyone else, as solar households pay lower monthly utility bills but depend on the grid for backup power. This shifts the cost of grid maintenance onto other households, often those with lower incomes. (Supporters of solar disagree, claiming utilities overlook the many benefits of rooftop installations, such as avoided transmission expenses.)
The conflict has been particularly intense in California, the nation’s leading rooftop solar market. In 2022, regulators significantly decreased the compensation that new solar households could receive for the electricity they generate. As a result, rooftop installations plummeted by 85% statewide, affecting installers, manufacturers, and distributors.
Currently, some officials advocate for a reassessment of the existing solar grant program’s impact on Californians who may not afford solar panel systems, as stated by Democratic state legislator Lisa Calderon.
Rising interest rates have further complicated the affordability of rooftop solar systems, making it costlier to secure funding for new equipment. Additionally, both the Trump and Biden administrations have imposed increased tariffs on solar products from China.
Some stakeholders within the rooftop solar sector argue they have to focus on cost-cutting measures.
Not only is rooftop solar pricier than large utility-scale solar farms, but the price of a U.S. home solar installation is three times that of a similar system in Australia. Some analysts attribute the difference to the regulatory challenges.
“Eventually, our industry may function without tax credits,” stated Chris Hopper, co-founder of Aurora Solar, a software company specializing in home solar systems. “I believe we can navigate these credit phase-downs over a reasonable timeframe.
“However, sudden changes would be devastating,” Hopper emphasized. “Rapid adaptation is simply not feasible.”
Elon Musk has openly criticized Donald Trump’s tax plan, asserting that the US president’s financial strategy undermines the cost-saving initiatives implemented by Tesla executives.
These comments from the billionaire entrepreneur were shared with CBS during a comprehensive interview set to air this weekend on Sunday morning. Previews shared on social media included his sentiment saying, “I’m disappointed after witnessing the enormous spending bill that will escalate the fiscal deficit, harming the efforts of the Doge team.”
Musk has been at the helm of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) since January. He later informed that he would step back from the Trump administration in April following a significant drop in Tesla’s revenue.
The proposal now seems to resonate with one major piece of Trump’s legislation, which was passed by the House of Representatives last week.
The legislation fulfills several of Trump’s campaign promises, including extending tax cuts for individuals and corporations while eliminating clean energy incentives established by Joe Biden.
However, the bill also allocates funds for the construction of barriers along the US-Mexico border and includes measures for the large-scale deportation of undocumented immigrants. The Non-partisan Congressional Budget Office predicts the bill will contribute approximately $2.3 trillion (£1.7 trillion) to the deficit, even after considering the tax cuts.
This comment fuels speculation about a potential rift growing between the billionaire and the president, whom Musk financially supported last year. Altogether, Musk’s Super Political Action Committee contributed $200 million (£148 million) to Trump’s presidential campaign before the elections in November.
In recent years, the popularity of electric vehicles has surged, fueled by a $7,500 tax credit from the federal government aimed at making purchases more affordable.
However, the budget bill unveiled by House Republicans on Monday suggests eliminating this tax credit. This proposal also introduces new limitations on other tax incentives that motivate automakers to invest significant sums into establishing new battery facilities in the United States.
Starting next year, the legislation is set to abolish the $7,500 tax credit for new electric vehicle buyers, as well as a $4,000 credit applicable to used car and truck acquisitions.
If signed into law, these changes could lead to a spike in electric vehicle sales in the near term, as consumers rush to take advantage of tax credits before they vanish. Nonetheless, analysts predict that sales may drop or slow drastically once the credits are no longer available.
“This will undoubtedly slow down the adoption rate significantly,” remarked Stephanie Valdez Streaty, director of industry insights at Cox Automotive.
Cox anticipates that electric vehicles will comprise 10% of all new vehicle sales this year. If Congress does not alter the tax credit, that figure is expected to increase by nearly a third by 2030, according to their estimates.
However, if Congress eliminates the credits, Valdez Streaty projects that electric vehicles could make up only 20-24% of new car sales by 2030.
Eliminating these credits would further financially burden automakers who are already dealing with increased costs stemming from a 25% tariff on imported cars and auto parts established during the Trump administration.
The Republican tax proposals could adversely affect numerous automakers striving to launch new models, particularly General Motors and Ford, both of which have made substantial investments in their manufacturing facilities and supply chains with the goal of producing millions of electric vehicles annually.
GM has inaugurated two battery plants located in Ohio and Tennessee, developed through a joint venture with LG Energy Solution. Ford is currently constructing three battery plants, including one in Michigan, in collaboration with two South Korean firms, SK-ON, in Kentucky and Tennessee.
Both Detroit-based automakers are also investing in mining operations to secure domestic lithium supplies, which is crucial for battery production.
Tesla, the leading electric vehicle seller in the U.S., is also facing challenges. Its sales have decreased in recent months due to consumer backlash against CEO Elon Musk, associated with the Trump administration, coupled with the absence of a new affordable model.
However, Tesla enjoys several advantages. While most manufacturers still incur losses on electric vehicles, Tesla has been profitable for over a year, allowing the company to lower prices to stimulate demand if credits are eliminated. Additionally, Tesla relies less on imported components compared to other U.S. manufacturers.
Many large automakers are racing to catch up with Tesla in the electric vehicle landscape, particularly in states with a significant number of Republican lawmakers, by establishing numerous new factories.
Toyota has constructed a battery facility in North Carolina, while Hyundai is set to begin electric vehicle production at its Georgia site, which will also house battery manufacturing. Stellantis, along with its partners, is currently developing two battery plants in Indiana, with the local economies relying on the jobs these plants will create.
Should tax regulations undergo significant changes, automakers may reconsider, scale back, or postpone their plans.
“If the government wishes for the U.S. to effectively compete with China and the rest of the world in the expansive EV sector, as well as encourage GM and Ford to make considerable long-term investments in EV development and domestic production, we must enhance the tax credits instead of causing whiplash,” Valdez Streaty stated.
China dominates global electric vehicle production and is a primary supplier of essential materials for batteries and electric motors, such as processed lithium and rare earth minerals. The elimination of the tax credit would significantly hinder the U.S. automotive industry’s ability to keep pace.
“This could adversely impact our global standing and the competitive capabilities of the U.S. automotive sector,” Valdez Streaty remarked. “It’s likely to slow us down when we are already trailing China.”
Neither Ford nor Stellantis had comments to share, and neither did the policy group, the Automotive Innovation Alliance.
The federal government initially introduced $7,500 in credits during President Barack Obama’s administration, maintaining this incentive throughout President Trump’s first term. These credits were subsequently updated and expanded under the Inflation Reduction Act, enacted by President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Given the higher costs of electric vehicles compared to traditional combustion engines, such credits have been vital in encouraging consumer purchases.
The credits are applicable to sports utility vehicles and pickups priced under $80,000, as well as sedans priced below $55,000. The vehicle must be assembled in North America, with the battery meeting specifications based on the country of origin for its materials. Additionally, to qualify, individual buyers must earn less than $150,000 per year, while joint filers must earn under $300,000.
Many of these criteria do not apply to leased vehicles. However, tax credits for cars and trucks are typically transferred to leasing companies, which are divisions of automakers. Many leasing firms have passed on their savings to customers, contributing to the notable increase in electric vehicle leases.
According to Valdez Streaty, approximately 595,000 electric vehicles were leased in 2024, a significant rise from roughly 96,000 in 2022, prior to the availability of leasing incentives.
On Tuesday, two U.S. senators introduced a bill with the goal of reducing damage to homes and communities caused by floods, wildfires, and other natural disasters by offering federal tax credits.
The bill, proposed by D-Calif. and R-Mont. lawmakers Adam Schiff and Tim Sheehy, aims to provide tax credits to incentivize people to upgrade their homes with improved protections against major disasters like hurricanes and wildfires.
The bipartisan legislation, known as the Increased Resilience, Environmental Weathering, and Enhanced Firewall Act, seeks to enhance community resilience in the face of increasing climate change impacts such as more frequent and severe floods, hurricanes, and other disasters across the nation.
Speaking to NBC News, Schiff explained that the proposed law was inspired by the devastating fires in Southern California and aims to address the growing insurance crisis in disaster-prone areas where insurance companies are pulling out of the market.
The bill proposes a federal tax credit that covers 50% of the cost of home resilience upgrades, including measures like underground sealed walls, automatic shutoff valves for water and gas lines, and fireproof roofing materials.
To qualify for the tax credits, states must have experienced a federally declared natural disaster within the past ten years, ensuring that the bill not only benefits recent disaster victims but also helps all Americans mitigate risks from hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, and wildfires.
Sheehy, who collaborated with Schiff on the legislation, emphasized that the bill aims to lower financial barriers for individuals seeking to protect themselves from extreme weather events and their property.
The tax credits are capped at $25,000 for families earning under $200,000 annually, with a phased-out limit for higher-income households. Families earning less than $300,000 could receive up to $12,500 in credits.
According to Schiff, the tax credits will be fully refundable and adjusted for inflation starting in 2026.
Schiff highlighted the importance of targeting relief to those most in need and aiming to reduce costs in disaster-prone regions by incentivizing resilient building practices through tax credits.
Elon Musk’s X stands to gain financially if the government removes £800 million in taxes on US tech companies as part of the economic deal with Donald Trump.
Dan Niedel, head of nonprofit tax policy, mentioned that social media platforms will be affected by the digital services tax in the negotiations between the US and the UK.
“It’s clear that X will be obligated to pay the DST,” he stated.
The Minister has been in talks about eliminating the DST as part of the negotiations with the US, in exchange for the Trump administration allowing the UK to avoid tariffs that would be imposed on April 2nd.
Technology secretary Peter Kyle emphasized that taxes are a crucial aspect and that they are exploring various concerns and opportunities for the future.
Prime Minister Rachel Reeves also expressed similar sentiments during a recent BBC interview.
Labour lawmakers are worried that dropping the DST under pressure from the Trump administration could result in revenue loss and cuts to essential services.
Reeves is under pressure to make spending cuts to comply with fiscal rules, including welfare reforms and civil servant layoffs.
Nigeria has filed a lawsuit seeking $79.5 billion from the government for economic losses caused by $2 billion in cryptocurrency exchange operations and back taxes, according to court documents filed on Wednesday.
Authorities have criticized Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, blaming it for the devaluation of the Nigerian currency. Two executives of the company were arrested in 2024 after local Naira trading websites emerged as popular platforms. Binance, which is not registered in Nigeria, has not yet commented on the situation.
The Nigerian Federal Internal Revenue Service (FIRS) claims that Binance owes corporate income tax due to its significant economic presence in the country. FIRS is seeking income tax payments for 2022 and 2023, along with a 10% annual penalty on the outstanding amounts. Additionally, FIRS is demanding an unpaid tax rate of 26.75% based on the interest rate of the Nigerian central bank.
Nigeria is already facing four counts of tax evasion related to the cryptocurrency industry, including non-payment of VAT, company income tax, failure to file tax returns, and conspiracy to help customers evade taxes through the platform.
In response to the allegations, Binance announced in March that it had halted all Naira transactions. The company is also facing separate allegations of institutional money laundering, which it has denied.
Salvo was fired by Donald Trump at the start of his trade war, imposing tariffs on China on Tuesday, prompting immediate retaliation from Beijing due to concerns about the global economic impact.
10% tariffs have been implemented currently, prompting China to release an anti-trade survey on Google swiftly. The Ministry of Finance has announced tariffs of 10% on items such as coal, liquefied natural gas, crude oil, agricultural equipment, large distributed vehicles, and pickup trucks from the United States.
The Chinese Ministry of Commerce and Customs Bureau took actions on Tuesday to protect national security interests by imposing export controls on important minerals such as tungsten, terrillium, lutenium, molybdenum, and rutenium-related items.
Furthermore, the Ministry of Commerce indicated that US PvH Group and Illumina would be added to the list of unreliable entities, subjecting them to restrictions or penalties without specifying the accusations against the companies.
In response to tightened US exports of high-tech products to China, Beijing is considering adding Intel to a list of companies under investigation for antitrust law violations. Financial Times reported this on Tuesday.
Despite Google services being blocked in China, the company continues to earn revenue from Chinese companies advertising overseas and using Android operating systems.
The Chinese Ministry of Finance stated that the unilateral imposition of tariffs by the United States violates World Trade Organization rules and could harm economic and trade cooperation between the two countries.
After initially threatening economic disputes with Canada and Mexico, President Trump decided to postpone tariffs following discussions with their leaders.
The US has removed exemptions for Chinese exports, imposing tariffs on most goods. Some Chinese retailers, like SHEIN and TEMU, relied on exemptions to sell affordable products in the US.
Trump agreed to impose a 25% tariff on Mexico after speaking with President Claudia Sheinbaum.
Discussions with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau led Trump to delay 25% tariffs on Canada. Trudeau announced a $1.3 billion border security plan in response to the decision.
The White House announced a meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping later in the week to address escalating trade tensions.
Economists warn that Trump’s tariff plan could raise prices for millions of Americans.
Trump believes tariffs will strengthen the US financially and lead to beneficial trade agreements with other countries.
The global financial markets reacted cautiously to Trump’s tariff actions, with mixed results.
Various stock indexes fluctuated following the tariff announcements, with currencies like the Canadian dollar experiencing volatility.
The Chinese market was closed for the Lunar New Year holiday and is set to reopen on Wednesday.
Apple has lost its high-profile 13 billion euro (11 billion pounds) Irish tax battle with the EU, but the ruling will bolster efforts by the European Commission to crack down on “preferential” tax regimes favoring multinational companies.
The long-awaited ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) came after a years-long legal battle over whether the European Commission was right in 2016 to demand the return of 13 billion euros of “illegal” tax breaks given to Apple for giving the iPhone maker an unfair advantage.
ECJ (European Court of Justice) The verdict was given The Commission argued that a lower court ruling in favor of Apple should be overturned, upholding a 2016 European Commission decision that found Ireland had provided unlawful assistance to Apple in the tax treatment of profits from Apple’s activities outside the United States and that Ireland was required to recoup the money.
In 2020, a lower court, the General Court, annulled the 2016 European Commission decision, finding that it had not been sufficiently established that Apple’s subsidiaries enjoyed a selective advantage. That ruling has now been set aside by the European Court of Justice, which has confirmed the European Commission’s 2016 decision.
The ruling was a victory for EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, who concluded: 2016 The iPhone maker benefited from billions of dollars worth of unfair tax breaks from the Irish government.
Vestager, who is due to step down this year, has been seen as a tough enforcer who has boldly taken on powerful multinationals such as Fiat, Amazon and Starbucks over their tax claims. But some of the cases have not stood the test of time, with a 2022 ruling against Fiat that was later overturned.
The case brings to an end a years-long legal battle that began in 2016 when the European Commission ordered Apple to pay billions of euros for significant underpayment of tax on profits from 2003 to 2014. Apple, which has had its European headquarters in Cork since 1980, was found by the EU’s competition watchdog to have benefited from a tax ruling by Irish authorities and to have paid an effective tax rate of 0.005 percent in 2014.
Apple has denied the accusations, saying the government aid money had not been paid, and CEO Tim Cook said: It is called The claim is “political nonsense.”
Apple challenged the Commission at the General Court, the EU’s second-highest court, and won. Conclusion In July 2020, Brussels ruled that Apple had failed to prove that it had obtained an illegal economic benefit in terms of tax in Ireland.
The Commission appealed, and last year the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, Giovanni Pitruzzella, recommended that the Commission overturn the General Court’s earlier ruling. Advocate General Pitruzzella said the General Court had made an error of law and needed to carry out a new assessment. He recommended that the European Court of Justice remit the case back to the General Court for a new ruling on the substance of the case.
Pitruzella’s recommendation was not legally binding and did not have to be followed by the ECJ, but the attorney general’s opinion carries great weight and usually influences the court’s final decision.
Following the ECJ ruling, Apple said: “This case is not about how much tax we pay, but which government we owe tax to. We have always paid all taxes wherever we do business and have never had any special arrangements. Apple is a driver of growth and innovation in Europe and around the world, and we are proud to have consistently been one of the world’s largest taxpayers.”
“The European Commission is seeking to change the rules retroactively, ignoring the fact that our income is already subject to tax in the United States under international tax law. We are disappointed by today’s decision because the European Court of Justice previously reviewed the facts and invalidated this case in its entirety.”
Meanwhile, the ECJ It also ruled He upheld the 2.4 billion euro fine imposed by the European Commission against Google in an antitrust case. Whether Google falsely favored its online shopping service. In this case, the Attorney General said In January, the ECJ ruled that Google’s appeal should be dismissed.
Google said: “We are disappointed with the court’s decision, which concerns very specific facts. We made changes in 2017 to comply with the European Commission’s decision. Our approach has been successful for more than seven years, generating billions of clicks across over 800 comparison shopping services.”
Denmark is taking action to address methane emissions, a significant contributor to global warming. Starting in 2030, Denmark will be the first country to implement a tax on livestock farmers based on the greenhouse gas emissions produced by their cows, sheep, and pigs.
Tax Minister Jeppe Bruus aims to reduce Denmark’s greenhouse gas emissions by 70% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.
From 2030, Danish livestock farmers will face a tax of 300 kroner ($43) per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, increasing to 750 kroner ($108) by 2035. However, with a 60% income tax credit, the effective cost per tonne will start at 120 kroner ($17.3) and gradually rise to 300 kroner by 2035.
While carbon dioxide is often the focus, methane is a potent greenhouse gas, trapping significantly more heat than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Methane ConcentrationMethane emissions from various sources, including landfills, oil and gas systems, and livestock, have been on the rise. Livestock alone contributes to about 32% of man-made methane emissions, as reported by the United Nations Environment Programme.
Denmark’s move is a significant step towards achieving climate neutrality by 2045. The country is pioneering the implementation of a substantial carbon tax on agriculture, with hopes that other nations will also take similar actions.
In New Zealand, a similar law was passed but later revoked amid criticism from farmers. Denmark, on the other hand, reached an agreement with various stakeholders to implement the carbon tax.
The Danish Society for Nature Conservation hailed the tax agreement as a “historic compromise,” emphasizing the importance of restructuring the food industry beyond 2030.
Denmark’s decision comes after protests from farmers across Europe, who argue that climate policies are jeopardizing their livelihoods.
Despite Denmark’s status as a major dairy and pork exporter, the country plans to tax pigs alongside cows due to their significant emissions. The tax proposal is expected to receive broad support in the parliament.
Statistics Denmark reported a slight decrease in the number of cattle in the country as of June 30, 2022, with 1,484,377 cattle in total.
Spotify is withdrawing support from two music festivals in protest of a controversial new tax on the French-operated music streaming platform, with further action expected in the coming months. is threatening.
Antoine MoninManaging Director of Spotify in France and Benelux, took me to X This week we will criticize new tax All music streaming services will be subject to a levy of 1.5% to 1.75%, the proceeds of which will be donated to the National Music Center (CNM). Founded in 2020 To support the French music sector.
All major music streaming platforms have joined together to oppose the new law, including Apple, Google’s YouTube, and local company Deezer, but Spotify has been the most vocal.Following last week’s announcement, Spotify the movement said said it was a “real blow to innovation” and was assessing its next move.
The company has now given a first look at what these moves will look like, with Monin saying it will withdraw its support: Francofolie de la Rochelle And that Printemps de Bourges We are supporting the festival starting in 2024 through financial and other on-site resources. “Other announcements will follow in 2024,” Monin added, but did not elaborate on what those measures would be.
Tete a Tetes
It’s worth noting that Spotify has recently gotten into trouble. Tete a tete Negotiations are underway with the Uruguayan government over a new law that promises “fair and equitable” remuneration for all artists involved in recordings. Spotify would have to pay rights holders twice for the same track under this law, Therefore, stop operating in that country. The company then made a 180-degree turn after receiving assurances from the government that music streaming platforms would not be expected to incur any additional costs resulting from the law.
France is different in that it is probably a much larger market for Spotify and an exit is not a viable course of action. And, as Monin hinted last week, that action plan is likely to focus on reallocating resources to other markets.
“Spotify will have the means to absorb this tax, but Spotify will stop investing in France and invest in other markets,” Monnin said. in an interview Last week on France Info. “France does not encourage innovation or investment.”
The federal tax credit for electric vehicles is about to change in certain ways that will make them much more attractive to buyers. Starting January 1, rebates of up to $7,500 on eligible new vehicles and up to $4,000 on eligible used EVs will be available. when buying a caras opposed to what you have to claim when filing your taxes.
Even better, Over 7,000 car dealers Companies representing nearly half of the country’s new car dealerships have already registered to ensure they can offer in-store rebates.
However, there is a catch. Not many cars may be eligible to receive the full $7,500 credit in the new year, as new restrictions take effect on the components that make up these zero-emission vehicles.
This is the result of these credits being reconsidered as part of President Biden’s anti-inflation law. This process involved a lot of negotiation, particularly with U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, over the ultimate purpose of the credits. Should they be the lubricant for the sale of zero-emission vehicles to help fight climate change, or a tool to help build an electric vehicle supply chain to North America?
As is often the case, the answer was somewhere in the vague middle. The credit was effectively split in two. If the automaker follows certain guidelines regarding the sourcing of battery materials, the vehicle will receive his $3,500 credit, and if it follows similar rules for battery parts, he will receive an additional $3,500 credit. given. (Beyond that, vehicles must be manufactured in North America to qualify.) Starting in 2024, these sourcing requirements will become even more stringent.
As a result, General Motors stated: Only this week That Chevrolet Volt will be fully tax deductible starting January 1st. Does not apply to the more expensive Cadillac Lyriq and brand new Chevrolet Blazer. GM, the country’s largest automaker, said it must accelerate plans to replace two minor parts in the Blazer and Lyriq to bring them into compliance with new regulations.
Meanwhile, Ford said only its F-150 Lightning is eligible for the full $7,500 credit. The Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring SUV is eligible for half the credit, but the Mustang Mach-E, Lincoln Aviator Grand Touring Plug-in Hybrid, and E-Transit van are not.
Even Tesla, a company particularly good at identifying and qualifying for clean energy credits and subsidies, initially said its long-range and rear-wheel drive Model 3 variants would lose half of their credits. A few days later In fact, they full credit. Tesla also signaled Model Y may be similarly ineligible.
As the new year approaches, more automakers are likely to share which electric vehicles are or are likely to be ineligible for the credit, and ultimately the Treasury Department will create a list on its website.
All of this uncertainty speaks to the level of complexity involved in manufacturing electric vehicles in a world where the majority of the supply chain remains in and around China. But it also highlights the guidelines’ somewhat troubling motivations.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
