For years, economists and environmentalists alike have argued that reducing global trade could help curb the carbon footprint of our modern economy. Yet, despite clear evidence that the transportation of goods across oceans and continents generates massive greenhouse gas emissions, policymakers have largely not addressed this powerful climate lever. That is, until now.
Opinion
So let me take a moment to express my gratitude to the Republican Party for its enthusiastic embrace of tariffs — an effective, if unintended, tool to mitigate climate change. By slowing global trade, these tariffs are doing what countless climate policies have struggled to achieve by reducing emissions generated by the production and transportation of goods worldwide.
Global cargo shipping accounts for nearly 3% of all carbon emissions, a number projected to rise without intervention. The steel and aluminum tariffs, proposed auto tariffs and broader restrictions on imports from China and other major manufacturing hubs all contribute to a decline in trade flows.
While the primary intention behind these tariffs may not have been to address climate change, their effect aligns with long-standing economic arguments that shorter supply chains can be more sustainable.
Reduced dependency on imports means fewer cargo ships burning heavy fuel oil and fewer trucks carrying goods over vast distances, ultimately leading to lower emissions. This is, frankly, an environmentalist’s dream.
For years, many Republicans have been skeptical of government-led climate action, rejecting carbon pricing and emissions regulations as heavy-handed overreach. Yet here they are, enthusiastically backing a policy that achieves the very thing climate-conscious economists have been advocating. Higher costs on global trade make domestic production more attractive. But of course the argument of cost and slower economic growth applies to tariffs as it does for climate policy. Free lunches are rare whether the motive is to protect jobs or protect the environment.
Perhaps the GOP didn’t set out to be the party of climate action. Their tariffs are driven by economic nationalism and a desire to protect American jobs, not necessarily by concerns over rising global temperatures.
Wyoming’s Republican Sens. John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis have endorsed the tariffs as a way to hold other countries accountable. Likewise, GOP Rep. Harriet Hageman calls tariffs a tool to re-domesticate a variety of businesses and secure the border against things we do not want.
Sometimes, good policy happens by accident. Intentional or not, the effect is the same: Tariffs reduce emissions by discouraging unnecessary trade, reshaping supply chains and lowering the carbon footprint of imported goods. If the result is a healthier planet, should we really quibble over motives?
This is a rare moment of bipartisan alignment — albeit an unspoken one — on the importance of curbing global emissions. While climate-conscious policymakers have long struggled to gain traction on carbon pricing or emissions limits, the GOP’s tariff agenda has done much of the heavy lifting for them. The world’s most powerful free-market advocates have accidentally embraced a fundamental principle of climate economics: that trade has a cost, and sometimes, that cost is too high for the planet to bear.
So, to my friends, let me say: Thank you. Thank you for leading the charge in reducing the carbon footprint of global trade. Thank you for doing what climate activists and economists have been urging for years. And thank you for proving that, whether by design or default, conservative economic policies can be a force for environmental good.
Now, if we could just get you on board with a carbon tax.
Wait, come to think of it — tariffs are a carbon tax on international shipping paid for by U.S. citizens.
I assume this is “tongue in cheek.”
Perhaps a “Modest Proposal”
I agree. Reducing global shipping will reduce carbon emissions. It might also cause a recession of the global economy, which in turn will reduce carbon emissions. It might also reduce human population growth – again lowering carbon emissions.
Thank you for sharing this perspective. I came across this article while searching for information about how tariffs might affect climate change because of changes in global shipping. My first thoughts on the issue were similar to what you have shared here.
I’m wondering, though, if there may not actually be a net benefit. With the US targeting Canada and Mexico, many global shipping journeys will become longer as nearby nations seek better markets. Similarly, with counter-tariffs coming from nearby countries, US good may also seek out better, more distant markets. Because of this, it seems to me that global shipping emissions would be the same.
I think there are probably many cases where tariffs could be used as tactics for shortening supply chains if they were designed to do so, however it doesn’t seem to be a likely outcome here.
Clarification:
I also didn’t mean to imply that nuclear power should ever be used exclusively, but rather than the real-world costs and benefits should be weighed, and that all forms of energy production and resource procurement should be considered and weighed based on that.
And it’s more nuanced than that: rooftop solar is especially good at decentralized power security (and reduced grid loading, though any use of distributed/decentralized battery/other energy banks also helps with this via distributed load leveling).
Nuclear and some others (hypothetically very large scale thermal-solar installations, large hydroelectric dams, among others) also can’t easily rely on free market pressures or small start-ups to really make it in reality. You either need massive private funding from some hypothetical government-sized mega corp with very long term planning in mind, or you need government co-opting, subsidies, or simply nationalized government owned and produced nuclear facilities for it to be practical. (reprocessing is also much more costly than just using fresh, enriched material, but also offers much better sustainability and energy security, avoiding reliance on imports of new uranium or mining + enrichment; though a long-term plan could be to use and stockpile spent fuel until prices rise sufficiently due to supply/demand pressure that reprocessing is economically viable, or viable with limited subsidies, though you want to plan for the infrastructure to be in place before that happens, so you avoid shortages)
The US also already has a lot of surplus plutonium from decomissioned weapons that is ready-made raw material for making MOX fuel (or some more nuanced alternatives more compatible with standard light-water reactors, like REMIX fuel, or an equivalent surrogate composed of plutonium mixed with depleted uranium, or, hypothetically, mixed with thorium as dilutant and fertile breeding element). You’d have to weigh the costs of handling plutonium (and blending it into usable fuel elements) with that of conventional enriched uranium use as well.
When domestic production isn’t sufficient to meet demand, prices will also rise and demand will fall and/or shortages will occur. Realistically, long-term shortages are much less likely to be a thing, but rather, the pressure on resources and rising prices will force manufacturers to be more efficient with production and force consumers to at least consider cutting back on disposable goods (or short-lived consumer products: like electronics or cars that could/should last vastly longer, though the latter is less flexible in climates prone to heavy corrosion and wear).
This could also make recycling more economically viable on top of reducing waste/disposable goods (or non-disposable goods treated as disposable). So more incentive for more efficient recycling of steel and aluminum.
Going further and putting more pressure of foreign oil imports (and encouraging other countries to do the same … either by design or by accident) would go further towards this, but also have the benefit of reducing the risk of oil spills by reducing the amount of tanker ships operating (more pipelines instead) and reducing the distances tankers travel. (obviously, at the same time we should be putting efforts into alternative fuels of various types, though some of the useful synthetic fuel processes for biomass to liquids would equally be useful for improving yields from low grade petoleum fractions, ie turning dirty, heavy fuel oil, into high purity synthetic diesel, or synthetic jet fuel, among other things … like hydration of cracked hydrocarbons into alcohols, or synthetic production of fuel alcohols, especially butanol, from syngas generated from heavy fuel oil)
I could go into use of carbon capture, too (specifically at the industrial smokestack/exhaust stage, not atmospheric: since the former is highly efficient, and the latter is horribly inefficient), or argue that bulk CO2 storage could be set up for future extraction for post-fossil industrial uses. (ie cheap CO2 for synthetic organic chemicals using cheap hydrogen + alternative energy)
But, more on topic: we should’ve been using tariffs (preferable baked-in by law and modulated by said laws + oversight) to ensure fair trade, or regulated free trade if you like. We should’ve started using that as soon as any labor/workers rights, safety, or environmental (or other pollution control and waste disposal) laws were enacted. Without tariffs on all trade partners with lesser standards (proportional to those lesser standards, via analysis of what portion of cost/price is impacted), you’re bound to end up losing cleaner, safer, better quality work and industry domestically to dirtier, unsafe, abusive, lower quality outsourcing.
This wouldn’t be conventional protectionism, as any country that could genuinely beat domestic production in sheer efficiency (via skill, better quality natural resources, etc) should still have a fair advantage in trade. A more modern, nuanced, climate (or pollution, or environmental) centered amendment to that would be further taxes on transportation and shipping based on aggregate pollution/environment/human health impact. (remember, most environmental regs started out first and foremost to address human health and safety concerns first, with “the planet” or “the environment” beyond that being a much later trend … though in reality, it’s all interconnected, but some things more immediately impact humans than others)
If we had more well-rounded, multi-industry, multi-science savvy politicians and legislators, we’d already have vastly more common ground on a wide array of issues where economic prosperity (particularly in the long term, stable context), domestic economic and national security interests, human health and safety, and a wide range of environmental and ecological factors all have common interests. And focusing on the common points while saving the contentious ones for later would allow actual progress.
We might even have a number of savvy people out there in positions of power who simply don’t want this, though, as bringing people together by appealing to many different interests (pure economic profit, security, economic sustainability, environmental sustainability, etc) doesn’t fit into the popular wedge-issue division-oriented politics that have dominated in the US since at least the 1980s (really before that, too, but mostly in terms of cold war moral/fear sorts of pandering), with an increasing trend towards moralistic issues on various sides rather than factual, economic ones. (and realistically, ecology is the economics of nature and almost always has a significant impact on the human economic world, too … so it’s not hard to find common ground on this or work on cost-benefit analysis rather than simply telling people to “do the right thing”)
All that said, the real elephant in the room that no one at the top is pushing for is nuclear power. That’s really the only sort of scenario where the world can wean off fossil fuels AND still have competitive (or growing) global economies. And while I understand most of the environmental concerns (IMO, all the realistic ones are entirely based on concerns of incompetence or negligence in fuel reprocessing and storage, or storage/competent alternate uses of the fission products … best case is none of it gets treated as waste in the long term), but fears of catastrophic failures of nuclear power plants and associated radiological disasters are unfounded in any sort of even remotely standardized program with any sort of remotely competent oversight (ie use proven, reliable designs, use enough of them that problems/flaws will end up noticed more easily and fixed more quickly, don’t build them on geologically unstable regions or those prone to compromising violent weather conditions), and most of all, the fear of nuclear proliferation is also really a non issue, but that’s been the main sticking points of most governments and a lot of activists (well beyond the environmentalist side).
There’s lots of ways to have reprocessing of fuel (or use of breeder reactors, or fast-breeders especially) with minimal practical application of weapons grade fuel production. (maintaining conditions with too many neutron poisons to make viable weapons for one) And even then, pretty much any country advanced enough to competently build nuclear weapons will also be unlikely to actually use them as anything more than a deterrent or diplomatic leverage point. (and honestly, wasting money on building/maintaining nuclear weapons at the expense of conventional military spending will simply weaken the latter and make the ability for real-world defense or force projection that much weaker)
Beyond that, there’s the medium to long term (long term if fusion takes a really long time to get working) use of alternate nuclear fuel cycles. Uranium to plutonium works, but plutonium itself is much less safe to handle (it’s more chemically reactive and much more radioactive) and thus more expensive to transport, store, or operate reactors with. The Thorium-Uranium cycle is much better there as both of those elements are more chemically stable (and have high melting points, and higher melting points) and thus safer to store as the bulk metal, but more importantly, the Uranium 233 (and minor quantities of 234 contaminates) is much less radioactive than Pu-239 (with Pu-240, etc, impurities) and thus generally cheaper and safer to store and handle, or to use in reactors. (in a fast-breeder reactor using thorium, the cycle can also be continuous, so batch type reprocessing isn’t needed at all, plus a portion of the fission products also end up burnt up in the high neutron flux of a fast reactor, further reducing reprocessing time/cost)
Aside from that, even if we were to do nuclear power in a manner no more safe or less accident prone than the aggregate of all of existing history, it would still be vastly safer (in terms of human life and health impacts) and more environmentally friendly per kwhr or unit of energy produced than any form of fossil fuel production when all variables are considered, and also safer than some alternative forms of energy. (I can’t remember the full statistics off the top of my head, so I forger which hydroelectric, solar, wind, or geothermal work out to be worse: again, this is including the aggregate of all existing history, not just current best-case uses, and would include death and broader health impacts from the entire supply chain related to them)
The artificial intelligence of normative science. evangelic and environgelic zero-sum politics.
Thank you Professor Shogren for making me realize how grateful I am to be able to contribute a significant share of my retirement accounts to this noble cause.
Tariffs are NOT a tax on the U.S. Citizens. Period.
The continued claim that they are, is a blatant falsehood.
China is responsible for 30-35% of global CO2 emissions. Not buying Chinese products anymore will also “help the environment”.
Who pays the tariff? The consumer. Call it what ever you want, it still raises the consumer purchase cost. (Six or 1/2 dozen, same thing).
JW Byrd. Consumers don’t necessarily pay for increase. Lot of companies have enough of a pad built in to price now to absorb the Tariff. Tariffs are old as trade between countries are. It was long proven 100 years ago that they work. USA has long been taken advantage of by other countries. Why look what India done to Harley Davidson. India slapped 100% tariff on Harley to protect their motorcycle industry. It worked. Not a peep from USA. This was during Obama Biden crime spree.
tough call here. do i take the words and explanation of an economics professor or do i believe the words of an angry and gullible retiree?
Please explain this to me because I have trouble understanding how tariffs aren’t taxing me. Here’s a current headline:
“Trump threatens 200% tariff on European wine in latest escalation.”
If this tariff is put in place, and I want to buy a French wine for a special occasion, don’t I pay more because of the tariff? Regardless of what you call it, the tariff is taking more money out of my pocket.
What am I missing?
They absolutely are. They’re a tax on US citizens that discourages them from buying imported products. Trump is recapitulating Smoot-Hawley, with an equal risk of causing an economic recession or depression. As for the environmental impacts of shipping: They would be reduced slightly by reductions in international trade, but given economic and logistical realities the benefits would be minimal. The most observable impact will be that US consumers will pay more for everything at a time when inflation is already creating hardship.
Don’t buy tariff taxed imports.
The business importing goods to the USA is taxed, not the American public.
If I don’t buy imported goods that have increased tariffs, I have not been taxed a dime.
In todays American idiocracy, propaganda is where people form their opinions not through their ability to THINK independently.
Jack didn’t take ECON 101. I suppose WY will be better if we tariffed everything coming in the state because we’ll be producing everything in WY. FYI, one study showed a pair of scissors produced domestically would cost over $100.
I don’t think so Jack, you’re still going to pay for the tariffs EVEN if you buy domestically because the domestic producer will raise their prices to match the new higher price of the import. Game it out.
Yes, tariffs function as a tax on consumers in the country that imposes them.
Let’s revisit Principles of Economics 101 and the debate between zero-sum thinkers of the Mercantilism and on-net-positive gains Free Trade Capitalism.
To restate, yes, tariffs function as a tax on consumers in the country that imposes them. When a government places tariffs on imported goods, those additional costs are usually passed on to businesses and consumers in the form of higher prices.
Here’s how it works:
Importers Pay the Tariff – The tariff is levied at the border when goods enter the country. Importers must pay this tax before selling the products domestically.
Cost is Passed to Consumers – Businesses that import these goods often raise prices to cover the added cost of tariffs, meaning consumers ultimately bear the burden.
Limited Substitutes May Worsen Impact – If domestic alternatives are available and competitively priced, consumers may switch. But if domestic production cannot fully replace imports, prices remain elevated, making everyday goods more expensive.
Retaliation Can Escalate Costs – If other countries impose counter-tariffs, exports from the tariff-imposing country become more expensive abroad, potentially leading to job losses in export-driven industries.
While tariffs are often promoted as a way to protect domestic industries, they frequently act as an indirect tax on consumers, raising prices and reducing purchasing power.
WOW
Reminds me of the talk show where the guy was shilling the idea that if your kid would not drink water, it was a great idea to give them high sugar sodas instead. As an economist Shogren must be aware of how many years it would take to rebuild manufacturing in the United States – it is not the snap of a finger. And finally – “Global cargo shipping accounts for nearly 3% of all carbon emissions”. Wow, yeah, “Thanks”! LMHO
Comparing tariffs to giving kids high-sugar sodas instead of water is a sharp analogy. The idea that we must choose between economic disruption or unregulated global trade ignores more balanced, strategic solutions. Your analogy misses the mark—this isn’t about swapping one bad thing for another, it’s about recognizing unintended consequences. That ‘only 3%’ of emissions from global shipping? Once global trade slows, so does the global economy, compounding the impact–let’s see how slow things go. The Reality of Rebuilding Manufacturing – You’re absolutely right that restoring domestic manufacturing is not an overnight fix. It takes years—likely decades—to rebuild supply chains, infrastructure, and a skilled workforce. Tariffs alone won’t instantly bring back factories; they may just increase costs in the meantime. As for rebuilding manufacturing—if it’s so urgent now, maybe we should ask why it was offshored in the first place.
The soda / water juxtaposition looked at from a little different angle does reflect a fundamental flaw in America’s current consumption mindset. That hypothetical glass of tap water is ultimately the ripe fruit of a community’s collective investment in millions of dollars of complex infrastructure at the local level. It is a sustainable closed loop system; built, maintained, paid for and utilized by people who have a vested interest in the success of the entire process. In contrast: That plastic bottle filled with soda is a cheap commodity packaged in a single use container and shipped a great distance for a marginal corporate profit. It is the spoiled fruit of a broken linear system that relies on energy intensive external inputs, economies of scale, and an insatiable need for growth for growths sake. Efficiencies in this dysfunctional paradigm are always exploited to maximize investor dividends; and the consumer is always left to bear myriad economic, environmental, and social long term burdens in exchange for short term conveniences and instant gratification. If this period of forced retraction is to be of any benefit, it will need to become an opportunity for introspection. We have to learn how to teach each other to remember to be worthy stewards of our countless blessings once again. We have no other choice.
SJ totally misses the satire here. (also misses the significant multiplier effect that will reduce emissions from the slower economy)
Excellent. At first I thought it was too subtle, but you hit the sweet spot.
Do you all think Barrasso, Lummis and the hageman care about you? Think again. They are a waste of federal money.
Good satire.
Spot on!