Why the big freak out over tariffs?
They may be good for the planet!
A 25% U.S. tariff on imports of steel and aluminum from all countries took effect.
The iron and steel industry worldwide accounts for around 21% of global industrial energy use and about 24% of industrial CO2 emissions in the world.
The aluminum industry’s carbon footprint is enormous.
PRESIDENT TRUMP insists that stiff tariffs on products from other countries will help U.S. manufacturers, despite the risk of higher prices for consumers and even a recession. Of far less interest in the news media is that increased domestic manufacturing and related activities, such as mining, would have greater impacts on the domestic environment.
On the other hand, insofar as tariffs might diminish industrial manufacturing in other countries, their environments could certainly benefit.
Globally, an economic downturn triggered by tariffs would slow growth, and reduce international shipping of goods and materials across vast distances. The result would be less energy use, less carbon emissions, and less pollution for the planet as a whole.
Let’s consider steel, and whether other countries cause greater or lesser environmental impacts than the U.S. when manufacturing it. Last year, the U.S. imported $33 billion worth of steel from 79 countries, with Canada, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, and Germany being the top five exporters. Other major steel exporters to the U.S. include the Asian countries of Japan, China, and Vietnam.
In terms of greenhouse gas emissions from blast furnace steel production, Canada is less polluting than the U.S., Mexico and Germany are comparable, and Brazil and Asian countries are worse.
But most steel in the U.S. is now made by melting down recycled metal using machines called electric arc furnaces, resulting in less carbon release. By this measure, Canada and Brazil do a lot better than Mexico and Asia.
Of course, there’s a lot more environmental harm caused by the production of steel and related products than that tied to greenhouse gas emissions (steel accounts for over 7% of total global emissions).
Steel production at today’s massive scale involves incredible destruction of terrestrial life, natural ecosystems, water and soil impacts, air pollution, hazards to marine life, and harms to indigenous people and traditional communities. Most of the world’s iron ore comes from Australia, Brazil, China, and India, and is shipped to just about everywhere. A tremendous amount of environmental damage results from extracting, transporting, and processing iron ore. Check out this recent article in Mongaby that summarizes the horrific environmental costs of producing steel (and aluminum) to humans and other life.
U.S. raw steel imports, of course, don't include the vast amounts of steel imported with finished products. For example, the U.S. accounts for 22% of all imported steel-laden cars, a figure far exceeding that of other countries. But those too have been targeted for new tariffs by Trump, driving automaker stocks down out of fear of higher vehicle costs and reduced demand. Trump’s import tariffs also trigger reciprocal tariffs, not only on steel but on products that contain steel. This further cuts consumption.
AT THIS POINT, almost anything that slows the global economy helps limit environmental damage. Economic growth radically transforms the face of the Earth, drives climate change, and destroys much of the living world. Global trade fuels more industrialization, more mechanization of agriculture, and more vast-distance transfer of materials and goods.
Well then, shouldn’t environmentalists applaud policies that slow the economy? When it comes to tariffs, at least a few people in the business community understand the problem. Among academics, Kadee Russ, professor of economics at UC Davis, laments that “I haven’t heard it [the potential environmental benefit of higher tariffs] sinking meaningfully into policy debate at this point, which is shocking to me.”
Overwhelmingly, Trump’s tariffs are harshly criticized on economic grounds, with no consideration of potential environmental benefits.
I might emphasize that tariffs don’t only affect consumption of resources. They also make it harder for the U.S. to offshore environmental harms from industrialization to other countries. Increased production of metals within the U.S., for instance, forces it to internalize the environmental (and social) costs of producing them. Given that the U.S. tends to protect its environment better than many less affluent countries, the net effect is environmentally positive.
Some people argue that tariffs actually harm the environment by making imported renewable energy products and electric vehicles more expensive and less available to U.S. consumers. Only about 2% of solar panels in the U.S. are made domestically, with much of the imported panels and related materials coming from Southeast Asia and China. As for wind turbines, U.S. manufacturers supply only about a third of the domestic market, with Mexico accounting for 63%.
Related arguments claim that less economic activity reduces investment in alternative energy and draws attention away from environmental policies in favor of economic issues. Whatever merit these views have, they clearly ignore the incredible and wide-ranging environmental harms caused by globalization and massive economic growth.
I DON’T take lightly the economic predicaments of ordinary people. They need to make a living. Meanwhile, the world expands economically and shrinks ecologically, with dire consequences for most life on Earth. So, as an overgrown civilization, we’re caught in a horrible bind.
I’m mindful that tariffs can increase the likelihood of an economic recession. I’m mindful that a recession means less industrial production, transportation, less energy consumption, but also less impact on land, water, air, and climate. I’m also mindful that tariffs are most likely to harm low-income consumers the most—not the wealthy top 20% that accounts for over 40% of consumption in the U.S.
An ongoing recession will hurt less-affluent people unless its harms are offset by countermeasures. People must insist that their elected officials find ways to mitigate loss of purchasing power, rising indebtedness, and unemployment. To maintain public support for protecting the environment, they can prioritize low unemployment over economic growth.
I’m also concerned that tariffs risk hurting poorer countries that are heavily dependent on exports to the U.S. With reduced local exploitation and shipping of raw material, such as iron ore and bauxite, people might turn to even more damaging ways to make a living, for example, by adopting more harmful and expansive agricultural or forestry practices. Poor countries could consequently suffer greater damage by further overshooting the carrying capacity of their environment. On the other hand, diminished external trade might incentivize people to live sustainably within the limits of what their environments can support.
Certainly, much depends on a country’s wealth. A rich country like the U.S. might choose to further overexploit its natural resources to manufacture products that it would otherwise import. Countries with an intermediate level of affluence, and those less inclined to overconsume, are likely in the best position to achieve self-sufficiency and a wholesome environment.
Some argue that the effects of tariffs and recessions are temporary, making any environmental benefits ephemeral. However, a persistent global recession (short of a major economic depression), especially when coupled with a diminishing supply of natural resources, could motivate society to adopt a sufficiency economy, rather than foolishly attempt an ever expanding one.
Even short-lived environmental benefits of a recession may help society understand that cutting consumption improves global wellbeing, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Such understanding is possible, especially if influential news media were to help. Convincing society that it can satisfactorily manage the negative effects of a slowing economy may be the greatest challenge for people promoting degrowth to avoid civilization’s collapse.
Coda
People should support tariffs that slow economic growth, reduce pollution, and help protect the natural world.
Tariffs should especially target products causing the greatest environmental pollution and destruction of nature.
Tariffs are needed to help protect the environment, however politically challenging.
The living world is greatly harmed by massive international trade. A levy on global shipping, could help reduce impacts.
Affluent countries import cheap products that drive overconsumption. These are often produced in less affluent countries with fewer environmental protections.
Policies are needed to offset hardships caused by tariffs and economic downturns, especially for people of modest means and the poor.
Any serious effort to stem the destruction of nature requires cooling the global economy by targeting overconsumption in affluent countries.
Continued human population growth forces economic expansion and ecosystem collapse. High fertility rates in certain countries of the world must be humanely reduced to lower local and global environmental impacts.
Policies and media coverage favoring sufficiency (less consumptive) lifestyles in the U.S. are urgently needed. Make it a political issue. Scale down proposals have the potential to garner adequate public support (check out this paper).
❖❖❖
If you’re unconvinced that slowing the economy is possible or needed to save the world, then please fight harder to protect a forest, for wildlife crossings over highways, or against noise, light, and plastic pollution.
Such may at least soften the blows of ruthless economic growth.
Plus the 10 Billion of Us documentary is fantastic. I'd never heard of this 10 year old film.
Good Earth Day Perspective!