KYIV, UKRAINE, November 26, 2025 /
EINPresswire.com/ -- The UN Climate Change Summit COP30, held in Belém, Brazil, ended with a compromise that delivered no breakthrough decisions. Despite the expectations of the international community, the final document does not contain any wording on the phased abandonment of fossil fuels – a key demand of many countries and the European Union. Oil-producing and energy-exporting states, including Saudi Arabia, blocked any concrete commitments, leaving only voluntary intentions, even though more than 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions come from coal, oil, and gas. According to Ukrainian businesswoman Alona Lebedieva, owner of the industrial and investment group Aurum Group, this is the result of intense geopolitical struggle, and the EU’s climate plans will have serious economic consequences.
As part of efforts to combat negative climate change, the European Union will introduce the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) next year – a cross-border tariff on carbon emissions. This is an instrument that will require importers of goods into the EU to pay for each tonne of carbon emissions related to the production of goods imported into the EU. Given the large number of exporters wishing to sell products on the large and high-margin EU market, the tax will be passed on to companies in exporting countries.
“The purpose of the ‘carbon tax’ is as follows. First, it is to prevent energy blackmail of the European Union by energy-supplying countries. Second, to ensure the EU’s transition to clean energy. Third, to facilitate the transition of the EU’s advanced economies to the next technological paradigm,” says Alona Lebedieva.
It is precisely the first point, Lebedieva believes, that explains the staunch resistance of “petrocracies” at the summit in Belém. The final document has effectively postponed key decisions: global climate targets were not strengthened, mechanisms for monitoring fossil fuels were not proposed, and national commitments were not revised – even though they are already insufficient to contain further global warming.
The greatest concern is the unwillingness of some countries to adopt real measures to reduce the use of fossil fuels, which are not only the main drivers of the climate crisis but also instruments of geopolitical pressure. Energy resources have long been a lever of influence in global politics. An example is Russia, which for years used Europe’s energy dependence as a tool of political coercion, while revenues from energy exports served as a source of financing aggression.
Lebedieva draws attention to the fact that in modern energy systems, the markets that consume energy products are usually far from the extraction sites. There is a need to deliver them to places of consumption. She believes that the EU quite reasonably concluded that the solution lies in minimizing the transportation component – that is, producing energy as close as possible to where it is consumed.
“‘Green energy’ is often more expensive than other types of energy, but it has an important advantage – it is produced close to the place where it is consumed. This reduces dependence on external energy supplies and ensures the autonomy and resilience of the energy system. It also eliminates the possibility of political blackmail by energy suppliers, whether it be Russia or the countries of the Middle East. But the issue of the high cost of ‘green energy’ needs to be addressed. The ‘carbon tax’ helps solve this – it is a mechanism of compensatory payments. Exporters to the EU market will have to accept this because the developed EU countries have a powerful tool for imposing their will – the right to grant access to the European market. No one is forced to sell their goods in the EU, but the large size and high profitability of the European market, together with the strong payment discipline of European buyers, make it extremely attractive,” Lebedieva notes.
The current situation is such that Ukraine will also have to pay the cross-border carbon emissions tariff.
“On the one hand, it is understandable that the EU pursues its own interests. On the other hand, considering the prolonged war that has devastated the Ukrainian economy, and the fact that it is Ukraine that is holding back Russia from attacking Europe, there are grounds for easing or postponing the EU’s strict environmental requirements for Ukraine. The Ukrainian government must convince the EU of the need to postpone the introduction of the ‘carbon’ tax,” said Alona Lebedieva, owner of the industrial and investment group Aurum Group.
At the same time, Ukrainian industrial enterprises must more actively advance the implementation of modern technologies, including those aimed at making production more environmentally friendly. This is important also because people in Ukraine should be able to live in better environmental conditions than they do now. If this can be achieved, it will stimulate the return of Ukrainians home – to decent jobs at modern, technologically advanced industrial facilities and to life in normal environmental conditions.
Alona Lebedieva
Aurum Group
email us here