Quantcast
Insights/Opinion
Galvanized steel coil rolls in a plant. Shutterstock

Rethinking Trade, Steel and Climate

President Trump's proposed steel and aluminum tariffs have reopened a confusing debate about trade, made harder to follow by the incoherence of the president's approach. But it's a debate we need to have, and clarify, because along with its incoherence, Trump's proposal correctly challenges the establishment wisdom that the current international trade framework is, broadly, the best the U.S. could hope for.


Begin with the incoherence. Trump is levying these tariffs because he thinks—rightly—China is gaming the trade system and hurting American manufacturing by exporting far more to the world (not only the U.S.) than it buys. But Trump plans to levy the tariffs not only on Chinese steel, but on countries like Canada which are not cheating and which run trade surpluses with the U.S. Steel Workers President Leo Gerard, who understandably favors help for U.S. steel and aluminum, has said he doesn't want Trump to go after Canada and other countries that play by the rules.

And Trump is not planning tariffs on goods manufactured abroad with cut-rate steel or aluminum—from automobiles to construction steel to beverage cans. So prices will go up for U.S. manufacturers who rely heavily on steel and aluminum, but actually go down for their foreign competitors, likely hurting more U.S. manufacturing jobs among steel-using companies than will be created among steel-making ones.

It's a mess. The mess comes partly from Trump's attitude that trade agreements are fundamentally win-lose power struggles. But at its core is the refusal of current agreements like the WTO and NAFTA to take into account the incentives and price signals they send up and down the global supply chain.

Trump is performing a valuable service by raising the issue and forcing the establishment to confront it.

As pro-trade economists like Paul Krugman have pointed out, just as it makes sense to import sugar from warm tropical countries where it grows well, it makes sense to import aluminum, whose main production cost is electricity, from Canada which has abundant hydropower and a small population needing electricity. But it doesn't make sense to encourage countries like China to recklessly mine raw iron ore, aluminum, and coal, using quasi-forced labor, then smelt it in wasteful, inefficient mills, all the while ignoring basic air and water pollution controls, to produce steel or aluminum for export. We then give those seemingly cheap metals unlimited access to the U.S. market, penalizing U.S. companies that have to pay reasonable wages and spend substantial sums cleaning up their pollution. The pollution emitted by these processes doesn't stay in the country where it occurs; the carbon dioxide disrupts the global climate, costing everyone; the forced labor is, in effect, a massive, cruel form of modern slavery.

The current trade system encourages all of this bad behavior—it's nuts. But Trump's proposal won't fix it—instead of importing subsidized steel and aluminum, we'll just import subsidized cars and beer cans.

What's needed is a complete overhaul of the global trading system, so that instead of encouraging a race to the bottom—lower wages, more dangerous working conditions, higher levels of pollution, escalating risks from climate change—trading rules instead encourage countries to use better technology, higher standards, fair sharing of profits with workers, so that trade does, indeed, deliver on its promise to lift all boats.

One important piece of this puzzle is climate. The "carbon loophole" refers to the fact that, so far, efforts by industrial nations to reduce their climate impact have combined two very different strategies. First, countries like Denmark and Germany, now China, and some states in the U.S., have begun replacing dirty fossil technologies with clean, efficient, and renewable sources of energy and transportation. These innovations are what we need much more of to avoid climate disaster.

But in some cases countries simply lowered their apparent rate of greenhouse pollution by taking pollution-intensive parts of their economy, like making steel, and shipping them overseas. So when steel that used to be made in California is now made in China, the greenhouse pollution actually goes up, because Chinese steel mills are less efficient than those in the U.S. (European mills are better yet.) (Not only carbon pollution increases, but also ozone and sulfur that poison our lungs—and those become not only the infamous Beijing deadly air, but actually drift across the Pacific and increase lung disease on the West Coast.) Data suggests that a significant part of Europe's "climate progress" has actually been pollution "exported" through this carbon loophole.

How to fix this? Yale Economist William Nordhaus suggested the creation of a "Climate Club" in which countries committed to reducing greenhouse pollution levied a common tax on the carbon pollution embedded in goods made in their economies like aluminum, steel and cement, whether in raw form or embodied in cars, concrete and beer cans. Trade in carbon-intensive goods among these countries with a common carbon tax would flow as usual. But countries that refused to levy an equivalent carbon tax would see it collected on their goods at the customs dock. If, say, the EU joined a Climate Club of countries which levied a $40/ton tax on carbon dioxide emissions, and Donald Trump's administration refused to join the Club, when American steel beams were shipped to the EU, the Europeans could collect the carbon taxes Trump had refused to levy, eliminating the subsidy and leveling the playing field between American and Polish steel.

Europe has an emission trading system (ETS) which could serve as the model for such a Climate Club, and Europe is a likely leader in proposing such an idea—France has periodically floated the notion! (Europe's current ETS however, allows industries like steel, aluminum and cement free permits to emit carbon emissions, as an alternative to giving foreign competitors an advantage. Europe would have to decide to tax the carbon in all steel, instead of, as at present, eliminating the carbon fee on all steel.)

But it's possible that the desire to retaliate against Trump's crude and heavy-handed trade saber rattling might provoke the Europeans and other countries to take a major step forward towards improving both the global trading system and the effectiveness of the Paris climate agreement. A Climate Club doesn't need universal agreement by hundreds of countries—if Japan, the EU, Canada, Australia, Mexico and Korea were to join, the impact on global trade—and the climate—could be enormous. And anger at Trump might even bring unlikely first-movers like India and Brazil to the table.

Such clubs for trade would not solve the full array of problems with the WTO and NAFTA. What is needed is a more comprehensive definition of disallowed subsidies, a recognition that manufacturing processes and labor standards have global, not just local, impacts, and probably mechanisms to discourage countries from accruing unwarranted and persistent trade surpluses with the rest of the world. But in the specific context of tariffs on steel and aluminum, a Climate Club might constitute a major breakthrough, and a better alternative to a trade war.

Show Comments ()

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Sponsored
Climate
Pexels

Advocates Shouldn’t Be Afraid to Tell the Truth About Climate Change

By Jeremy Deaton

It has been a tough few months for climate change. In October, an international body of climate scientists declared humans have a little more than a decade to make the drastic changes needed to keep rising temperatures reasonably in check. In November, federal scientists released an equally grim assessment detailing the unprecedented floods, droughts and wildfires expected to hit the U.S. Then, this month, with the world ablaze, diplomats gathered in Poland to bicker over how much water each country should pour on their respective fires and, in some cases, whether scientists were exaggerating the size of the flames.

Keep reading... Show less
Ildar Sagdejev / Wikimedia / CC BY-SA 4.0

The Dirty Scheme to Make Americans Buy More Gasoline

By Rhea Suh

It's not often that an industry chieftain brags to investors about picking the pockets of American families with help from the White House.

That's what happened, though, after Big Oil schemed with the Trump administration last summer to ensure higher gasoline consumption—to the tune of $16 billion a year—and more climate-disrupting carbon pollution from our cars, vans and pickup trucks.

Keep reading... Show less
Energy
The planned Liberty Project is an artificial gravel island to allow oil drilling in the Arctic. Hilcorp / BOEM

Trump Administration Sued Over Controversial Arctic Drilling Project

Conservation groups are suing the Trump administration to halt construction of a controversial oil production facility in Alaska's Beaufort Sea, the first offshore oil drilling development in federal Arctic waters.

Hilcorp Alaska received the green light from the Interior Department in October to build the Liberty Project, a nine-acre artificial drilling island and 5.6-mile underwater pipeline, which environmentalists warn could risk oil spills in the ecologically sensitive area, threaten Arctic communities and put local wildlife including polar bears at risk.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular
AAron Ontiveroz / Denver Post / Getty Images

5 Everyday Products Contaminated With Plastic

However, the infiltration of plastics into our daily lives goes much deeper, making it hard to avoid this polluting material which will remain in our ecosystems for centuries to come.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Popular
Fracking waste from the Vaca Muerta shale basin in Argentina being dumped into an open air pit. Greenpeace

Indigenous Group Sues Exxon, Energy Majors Over Fracking Waste Contamination in Patagonia

A major indigenous group in the Argentine Patagonia is suing some of world's biggest oil and gas companies over illegal fracking waste dumps that put the "sensitive Patagonian environment," local wildlife and communities at risk, according to Greenpeace.

The Mapuche Confederation of Neuquén filed a lawsuit against Exxon, French company Total and the Argentina-based Pan American Energy (which is partially owned by BP), AFP reported. Provincial authorities and a local fracking waste treatment company called Treater Neuquén S.A. were also named in the suit.

Keep reading... Show less
Food
A Yelp event at Rip's Malt Shop in Brooklyn, New York, which serves vegan comfort food, including plant-based proteins produced by Beyond Meat and Field Roast. Yelp Inc. / Flickr / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Should Plant-Based Proteins be Called 'Meat'?

By Melissa Kravitz

Fried chicken, bacon cheeseburgers and pepperoni pizza aren't uncommon to see on vegan menus—or even the meat-free freezer section of your local supermarket—but should we be calling these mock meat dishes the same names? A new Missouri law doesn't think so. The state's law, which forbids "misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry," has led to a contentious ethical, legal and linguistic debate. Four organizations—Tofurky, the Good Food Institute, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and the Animal Legal Defense Fund—are now suing the state on the basis that not only is the law against the U.S. Constitution, but it favors meat producers for unfair market competition.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Energy
A coal-fired power plant in Jiangxi, China. chuyu / iStock / Getty Images Plus

IEA: China and India to Fuel Further Rise in Global Coal Demand in 2018

By Daisy Dunne

The IEA's Coal 2018 report finds that global coal demand grew by 1 percent in 2017 after two years of decline. The rise was chiefly driven by global economic growth, it says. Despite recent growth, demand is still below "peak" levels seen in 2014.

Demand is likely to "remain stable" until 2023, the report authors say. This is because falling demand in western Europe and North America is likely to be offset by increased demand in a host of Asian countries, including India, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Carbon Brief takes a look at the IEA's changing coal forecasts for key world regions.

Keep reading... Show less
Politics
A majority of Americans support a plan to provide jobs while transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy. Serts / Getty Images

81% of Voters Support a Green New Deal, Survey Finds

It's been little over a month since newly-elected Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez joined some 200 young climate activists for a sit-in in soon-to-be House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi's office to demand that Democrats back a Green New Deal, a plan to transform the U.S. energy economy in order to stave off climate change and promote greater equality. Since then, support has ballooned for the revolutionary policy plan, with 38 Congresspeople now pledging to back a select committee to develop it, and to renounce donations from fossil fuel companies, according to the latest tally from the Sunrise Movement. But what do voters think?

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored

mail-copy

The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!