CBAM is an evolving policy. Initial EU trial is 2023-26 and is...

CBAM is an evolving policy. Initial EU trial is 2023-26 and is only aimed at cement, iron and steel, aluminium, fertilisers, and electricity. It is therefore product specific. California and 11x NE states of America have had a CBAM on electricity operational for some time.
Critics of CBAM as it pertains to other energy intensive industries, or in our case commodities, will cite the how their product isn't currently affected. This argument is pretty ignorant as when dealing with an evolving issue like climate change and the 'greenification' of supply chains, it is pretty clear that scope 1/2/3 emissions of every single product will come under scrutiny, eventually. And when it comes to mine scale investments we are inherently dealing with multi-decade timeframes. The system needs time to adjust. There is also the verification and auditing system which needs to be developed and integrated into marketplaces, technologies such as blockchain are being used by as a tool here (ie. Friedland's ABAXX)
Simon Moores made the comment that VW (and now Ford's) move to Indo nickel is purely about securing the material, a purely business driven decision. This insinuates they are agnostic to CO2 footprint of their raw materials, for the moment. Time will tell but as CBAM becomes more robust and ESG accountability a more central focus to shareholders, I think clean nickel and lithium products will go to Rest of World market while dirty/cheap products will feed just the China market.