Carbon tax in Mexico. From regulatory simulation to real competitiveness by Carlos Montoya. For years, in Mexico, we have treated environmental taxes as if they were a future topic. Today that narrative no longer holds water. The recent update to the Nationally Determined Contribution, NDC, presented by Mexico at COP30, marks a turning point. The country commits to standardizing carbon pricing at the national level. This is no small matter. It is the beginning of a structural transformation in how we understand competitiveness. We must keep in mind that the price varies considerably across the country, with only 11 states having implemented it. Costs range from$58 per TCO2E Mexico City to$667 cueritaro, with Chihuahu being a state where this discussion has only just begun. The current context, however, remains uncertain. States that have already implemented carbon taxes, unlike Chihuahua, have done so under unclear schemes, primarily focused on revenue collection and with little real impact on decarbonization. Tax revenue has been prioritized over structural change. And therein lies the mistake. A poorly designed carbon tax does not transform industries, it only makes operations more expensive. The international evidence is compelling. In Europe, these mechanisms have been evolving for over two decades and are now complemented by instruments such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, CBM, which is already in force. This scheme requires products entering the European Union to declare their carbon footprint using methodologies that are verifiable and auditable by accredited bodies. It is not optional. It is a requirement for competitiveness. Adding to this new environment is another equally relevant change. Starting in 2026, financial markets are requiring the disclosure of climate and sustainability information under standards such as IFRS S1 and IFRSS2. These standards establish guidelines for companies to report, in a structured and verifiable way, their risks and opportunities related to sustainability, S1, and specifically to climate S2, including emissions, transition strategies and resilience to climate scenarios. This means that sustainability is no longer just an operational or reputational agenda. It's a financial issue. It's information that directly impacts investment decisions, company valuations, and access to capital. In that context, Mexico cannot afford to improvise. And this is where Chihuahu faces a particular challenge. Unlike other states, Chihuahuas has not yet explored this type of regulation. This is certainly a cause for concern, but it also opens a rare strategic opportunity. The possibility of designing it well from the outset. The immediate precedent is clear. The Forum on Carbon Taxes, held by Index on January 23, brought to the table a level of technical discussion unseen in the region since the SRAG Latam Latin American Symposium on the Environment in 2023. The participation of stakeholders such as Mexico 2, Mexican Stock Exchange Group, allowed for an understanding not only of how these mechanisms function internationally, but also of the direction Mexico is taking. This momentum cannot be wasted. We are in a period of transition where international commitment already exists, the technical tools are available, and deadlines are approaching. To pretend that this issue is still unrelated to the local reality is simply a misreading of the situation. The implementation of a carbon tax should be understood as a transitional tool, not a punitive one. First, companies must be incentivized to measure their carbon footprint. You can't manage what you don't measure. Second, a clear window of opportunity must be opened for emissions reductions through investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and technological modernization. And only then, as a final step, should mechanisms for offsetting or paying for residual emissions be established. That order is critical. Ignoring it creates distortions, loss of competitiveness, and, in the worst case, disinvestment. In cities like Ciudad Juarez, where the industrial base is robust and highly integrated into global supply chains, this issue is particularly relevant. Many companies operate with high levels of efficiency, but still lack full visibility into their environmental impacts. Not because these impacts don't exist, but because until now it hasn't been an explicit requirement for competing. That has already changed. Today, competitiveness is also measured by the ability to generate reliable, auditable, and comparable information on environmental performance. Sustainability is no longer just talk. It is now a technical standard that directly connects with markets, regulators, and investors. The real risk isn't the carbon tax. The risk is ignoring the speed at which the rules of the game are changing. Mexico has the opportunity to do things right, to move from a revenue-generating model to one that fosters productive transformation. But that will only be possible if we understand that the goal is not to charge for polluting, but to stop polluting without losing competitiveness. Because in this new economy, it's not the one who produces the most or the one who invoices the most who wins, but the one who manages to be profitable, efficient, and sustainable at the same time the one who can demonstrate.