Abstract. Border carbon adjustments are advancing rapidly across the major economies, but they remain notably controversial. The persistence of contestation suggests that what is at stake is not only a technical trade question but a broader contest over the normative visions that will govern climate and trade in the era of decarbonization.
CBAM remains contested because it operates on two narrative layers simultaneously, both structurally necessary to the instrument and yet pulling in different directions. On one reading, CBAM aims at correction: it equalizes market conditions between domestic producers subject to stringent carbon regulation and less regulated imports. Its central concern is justice: a question of who pays carbon costs, to whom, and on what basis. On another reading, CBAM aims at convergence: it reshapes global emissions incentives by deploying explicit carbon pricing as a shared framework. Its central concern is sovereignty: a question of what standards should govern global production, who gets to define them, and through what procedures.
The outcome is paradoxical. CBAM has produced more carbon pricing globally than two decades of multilateral negotiation, while alienating much of the developing world, and left developed-country partners oscillating between calibrated criticism and the prospect of adopting domestic equivalents. The central tension is here to stay: reconciling competing interests is precisely the instrument's promise and its appeal. This report examines how the two logics manifest in the debates surrounding BCAs, how they might coexist within a single instrument, and whether BCAs ultimately represent a productive synthesis or an unresolvable contradiction.
Abstract. This paper examines Brazil’s renewed commitment to multilateralism as both a defensive and agenda-setting strategy in a fragmented global order marked by rising unilateralism. Confronted with punitive U.S. tariffs and the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, Brazil relies on multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to mitigate risks, assert sovereignty, and protect its economy. At the same time, Brazil is leveraging these institutions to project leadership, notably through the establishment of a domestic emissions trading system and by hosting the COP30 summit in Belém.
The analysis highlights how Brazil combines reactive measures with proactive initiatives designed to advance a vision of climate equity and inclusive global governance. Brazil’s approach illustrates the potential of a middle power to act as a “bridge” between the Global North and South, sustaining the credibility of multilateral rules while testing their resilience under strain. The study also underscores the ambivalence of this strategy: while it offers opportunities for businesses, civil society, and international cooperation, it exposes Brazil to significant geopolitical risks and domestic contestation. Ultimately, Brazil’s wager raises a broader question for global governance: in an era of polarization, can strategic multilateralism serve simultaneously as a shield for national interests and a platform for transformative leadership?