• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CAN-USA Tariff Strife (split from various pol threads)

Sadly when you publicly don’t give respect to an elected official don’t be surprised when this occurs.
Trudeau very stupidly spoke about Harris losing and the step back on Feminism in the US. Not a move professionally or diplomatically that should have occurred. Trudeau and the Liberal party should not be surprised by any of this.
Remind me again which new Liberal hopeful leader has spoke about this?
 
The LCBO is the largest liquor purchaser in the world. If the LCBO stops buying American products it will be noticed, and will create problems in America.

The average bourbon drinker drinks JD because it's cheap and available... How many years of JD being more expensive than 40 Creek does it take to shift consumer interest?
I suppose I have to make the point more clear.

People who think they can out-guess the spontaneously emerging behaviour of markets - Adam Smith's "invisible hand" - pretty much always lose. People are anticipating that product embargoes ought to have the particular effect they desire. I have pointed out one example of something they haven't thought through, based on empirical observation, explained by someone who worked in the business.

Attacking easily reorganized supply chains is one of the last places to look for a pressure point.

Trump thinks his tariffs are going to be a massive revenue generator, as if people won't change production and purchasing behaviour. People proposing counter-tariffs and embargoes think those measures are "targeted" and will have particular effects, as if people won't change production and purchasing behaviour. What's most likely is that they will all turn out to be wrong, unless they really tighten the screws in their respective domains to force people to supply and buy particular things.

People proposing to accelerate selected projects with public funds will probably also guess wrong in attempting to choose "winners" and "losers". I further guess that this part of the "emergency response" will mainly be used to further subsidize the bleeding edges of emerging technologies - usually an expensive proposition - under the guise of funding "all sorts of things".
 
Donald Trump vs Michael Bloomberg



...

Bloomberg - Mark Carney - City of London - EU - WEF - Davos - Podesta - Centre for American Progress - Canada 2020 - Liberal Party of Canada - Power Corp.


And another man you have never heard of

Morgan McSweeney


....

Then add China-China-China on top and you have the basis for our current predicament.
 
I suppose I have to make the point more clear.

People who think they can out-guess the spontaneously emerging behaviour of markets - Adam Smith's "invisible hand" - pretty much always lose. People are anticipating that product embargoes ought to have the particular effect they desire. I have pointed out one example of something they haven't thought through, based on empirical observation, explained by someone who worked in the business.

Attacking easily reorganized supply chains is one of the last places to look for a pressure point.

Trump thinks his tariffs are going to be a massive revenue generator, as if people won't change production and purchasing behaviour. People proposing counter-tariffs and embargoes think those measures are "targeted" and will have particular effects, as if people won't change production and purchasing behaviour. What's most likely is that they will all turn out to be wrong, unless they really tighten the screws in their respective domains to force people to supply and buy particular things.

People proposing to accelerate selected projects with public funds will probably also guess wrong in attempting to choose "winners" and "losers". I further guess that this part of the "emergency response" will mainly be used to further subsidize the bleeding edges of emerging technologies - usually an expensive proposition - under the guise of funding "all sorts of things".

Supply chains will find a way...


"Supply chains will find a way" means that despite disruptions or challenges, the network of companies and processes involved in getting a product from its raw materials to the consumer will adapt and find alternative methods to continue delivering goods, even if it means adjusting routes, sourcing different suppliers, or implementing new strategies to overcome obstacles.

Key points about this phrase:
  • Resilience:
    It emphasizes the inherent flexibility and adaptability of supply chains, allowing them to weather unexpected events like natural disasters, political instability, or sudden demand shifts.

  • Innovation:
    When faced with disruptions, companies within a supply chain will often innovate to find new solutions, such as utilizing different transportation methods, exploring alternative sourcing options, or leveraging technology to optimize logistics.

  • Market forces:
    The basic economic principle that businesses will strive to meet consumer demand, even if it requires finding new ways to source and deliver products.
Example situations where "supply chains will find a way" might be used:
  • A major port is temporarily closed due to weather, but companies within the supply chain can reroute shipments through different ports or utilize air freight to minimize delays.

  • A key component becomes scarce due to a production issue, prompting companies to explore alternative suppliers or redesign products to use different materials.

  • A geopolitical conflict disrupts trade routes, leading businesses to identify new trade partners or adjust shipping lanes to navigate around affected regions.

 
Trump is starting a trade war without allies, and may find his economy arrayed against a coalition of the willing-to-buy-elsewhere. The U.S. exports over $2t a year; about 7.5% of its GDP. Canada on its own has limited leverage. The rest of the world together has considerably more. You can absolutely bet that US adversaries like China will encourage such reprisal as a strategic weakening of America’s diplomatic and economic partnerships, and Trump is going to play right into that hand.
If adversaries taking advantage of the situation is a worry, we shouldn't take a second step (Trump took the first) which escalates and militates that situation.

People are too easily goaded into following one mistake with another because they can't control their tempers and think rationally. That their emotions are not in check is visible on the faces they present to cameras. For once it would be useful to consider and follow the contrarian "anti-war" path, instead of the bleating of the sheep who suddenly want to be wolves.

This is an economic dispute, and there is ample empirical evidence that favours maintaining unilateral free-trading practices even in the face of protectionism. Repeat that as long as necessary for the implications to sink in.
 
Screw you all. I have 17 bottles of Rick and Lisa's driveway wine from 2023 still in y wine rack so i am good to go. My wife and I harvested a bunch of wild grapes from our 500m driveway and made some low quality wine in 2023. Its 5-9% alcohol and watch for grape skins and the occasional seeds.
 
If adversaries taking advantage of the situation is a worry, we shouldn't take a second step (Trump took the first) which escalates and militates that situation.

People are too easily goaded into following one mistake with another because they can't control their tempers and think rationally. That their emotions are not in check is visible on the faces they present to cameras. For once it would be useful to consider and follow the contrarian "anti-war" path, instead of the bleating of the sheep who suddenly want to be wolves.

This is an economic dispute, and there is ample empirical evidence that favours maintaining unilateral free-trading practices even in the face of protectionism. Repeat that as long as necessary for the implications to sink in.
My bottom line view is this. Canada vs USA trade war is Canada loses much more than the USA. I don't give a rats poodle how Trump deals with the rest of the world, to me it is irrelevant.

I want a federal government with a fresh mandate (election now kids) that represents ALL the provinces making a deal with Trump and for F sake, lets tidy up our front lawn (secure the damn borders and get a grip on crime including illegals and "asylum" seekers"). I don't blame the provinces for sticking up for themselves (not like Trudeau can and in my view he no longer has mandate to do so).
 
Topshelf distillery. Totally worth it. Discovered them during the pandemic of all things when they converted to making hand sanitizer when there was a shortage at the beginning. They got a lot of exposure during that time. At the time they were really only making gin. But have expanded quite a bit now.
Gin is an easy product to get a distillery up and solvent while working on products with longer prep times (eg. whiskies).
 
Don't assume that Donald is just indulging fancies.

Many here find it easy to believe that Trudeau is nothing but a pair of socks but are equally determined to get rid of him because of the line of thought, the philosophy, the supporters and fellow-travellers he represents.

Donald didn't get to where he is without having a similar coterie. He too has his true believers.

Trudeau and Trump. Leaders and followers. Dilettantes and Demagogues. Believers and Figureheads.


To quote that gold standard of US journalism, USA Today: is this about “revenge” or “revenue”?

For there really is a moral case for tariffs. In a protectionist state, goes the argument, there is less need for welfare because jobs are plentiful; less incidence of social unrest because wages are high.

Prices might go up – though they barely did in Trump’s first term – but that’s the whole point. While income taxes penalise effort, tariffs, by hitting consumption, encourage frugality and saving.



Trump’s trade war isn’t as mad as it seems​

The Donald is right to challenge the prevailing anti-tariff orthodoxy

02 February 2025 2:45pm GMT




After Trump slapped tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, economists of Left and Right called him a lunatic: protectionism surely means higher prices, disrupted supply chains, trade war. Super triple bad!
Yet philosophically it makes sense, and the inability of journalists to see the President’s point of view betrays how far free trade has become a religion – a faith, like any other, that’s prone to myth and hypocrisy.

The myth is that free trade built America and is an axiom of conservative thought. In reality, throughout the 19th century, taxes on imported goods provided over half the government’s revenues, and Republican presidents saw them as essential to expand industry and protect US workers from cheap products and labour. To quote President William McKinley, Trump’s mountainous hero: “Free trade results in our giving our money… our manufactures and our markets to other nations... It will bring widespread discontent. It will revolutionize our values.”

That consensus ended with the Depression, which appeared to discredit economic nationalism, and the Cold War, which transformed America into the referee of a new international system. Free trade graduated to orthodoxy. Yet even Ronnie Reagan used tariffs – against Japan – and Joe Biden imposed a 100 per cent tariff on Chinese electric cars, also tripling taxes on steel and aluminium products. “If the pandemic taught us anything,” said Biden, “we need to have a secure supply of essentials here at home.”

The EU remains a cartel, charging the US around 8-10 per cent to sell cars in its market. In short, economic protection is a fact of life, and comes in multiple forms – from subsidies to currency manipulation to environmental or labour standards –indicating that it is natural for human beings to tip the scales in their favour.

From the White House it looks as if America is currently carrying the weight of the world on its shoulders. The country pays about $820 billion to defend the West while operating a trade deficit worth $773 billion. Its border is overrun by illegal migrants and drugs. In 2023, around 81,000 Americans died from opioid overdoses; a key source of illegal fentanyl is China, coincidentally America’s #1 competitor, routed through Mexico via drug gangs.

You might argue that addiction is a problem of demand, not supply, but to the reactionary mind, migrants, foreign cars and drugs amount to an invasion by other means. Brits agonise over the fact that Americans make more money than us, yet that advantage is being whittled away by crippling medical bills and early deaths – signs that an apparently strong nation is, like the late Roman empire, overwhelmed and crumbling from within.

So, Trump wants to use tariffs to force foreigners to show some respect. When the US recently tried to repatriate migrants to Colombia, the Colombian government refused to play ball. Trump threatened tariffs and visa sanctions; the Colombians folded an hour later and offered to send their presidential plane to collect their people.

Trump tried similar tricks in his first term and even free market Republicans made their peace with what they hoped was a temporary tool of foreign policy coercion. The interesting question, the one that really matters, is this: does Trump Mark II, emboldened by a new majority, now want to make these tariffs permanent in order to rebalance the domestic economy away from taxes on income and towards taxes on imports? To quote that gold standard of US journalism, USA Today: is this about “revenge” or “revenue”?

For there really is a moral case for tariffs. In a protectionist state, goes the argument, there is less need for welfare because jobs are plentiful; less incidence of social unrest because wages are high.

Prices might go up – though they barely did in Trump’s first term – but that’s the whole point. While income taxes penalise effort, tariffs, by hitting consumption, encourage frugality and saving. Citizens grow their own food, make their own products and defer pleasure,
all critical ingredients of the Protestant-capitalist ethic. The rhetorical link between addiction and free trade/open borders is apt. Trump wishes to make his country not just great but sober and independent, weaned off the opium of cheap Chinese imports.

To those who say, “this is a variety of social engineering”, one might reply: “so is net-zero”. Few of us practice economics objectively; it’s a means to build the society you want.

Trump has thus dragged a latent culture war into the open. On one side are liberals who believe the world must pool resources and sovereignty to save the planet. On the other, nationalists argue that however well-intentioned this is – even if anthropogenic climate change is real or the global south has a legitimate claim for reparations – what it means in practice is powerful democracies losing their edge.

The world is a jungle. Nation states, like individuals, should put their own people first. We can carry on down the path of signing treaties and lowering barriers and, for a while, it will make Americans feel like the strongest consumers in history, driving off to see their oxycodone dealers in their cheap little electric cars. Till the day comes that China says it wants Taiwan, and Beijing is too strong for anyone to stop it.
 
Speaking of Bourbon. I didn't know this but the United States are also in trade talks with the EU over US tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. If no deal is reached by March 31st, the EU is threatening to impose a 50% tariff on US whiskey exports to the EU. So, its possible that Bourbon producers could get hit with a 25% tariff from Canada (no details on Mexican targets) and 50% tariff from the EU. More details here:

 
Screw you all. I have 17 bottles of Rick and Lisa's driveway wine from 2023 still in y wine rack so i am good to go. My wife and I harvested a bunch of wild grapes from our 500m driveway and made some low quality wine in 2023. Its 5-9% alcohol and watch for grape skins and the occasional seeds.
And the best part, unpaid forced youth labour was involved in the making and processing of said wine/swill. You can taste the complaints from my sons in each cup.
 
Some random thoughts;
Let’s make a few assumptions.

1. Canada will try to use diplomacy and targeted import tariffs to create US domestic pressure to lift the tariffs.
2.Canada won’t succeed in convincing the Trump administration to lift its tariffs.
3. The tariffs will continue as is for a minimum of four years

Given those assumptions what does Canada need to start doing now to ensure that the Canadian economy is best positioned to withstand and grow?

How do we best encourage businesses, that could relocate to avoid tariffs, to stay in Canada?

What does the Cdn federal government need to do fiscally to avoid an even larger deficit given a probable decrease in tax revenue in the next 1-4 years?
(2) So what? We need to enlist the support of someone who Trump does listen to. Who does he listen to? He listens to "ordinary" Americans. Therefore, we should help Americans to understand the impacts of tariffs on retail prices paid by American consumers. Maintaining and improving good will of Americans towards Canada is a sine qua non of this line of operation. Therefore, we should avoid undertaking actions which will aggravate Americans and uptake actions which will tend to improve relations.

(3) So what? Canada must execute on objectives entirely under Canadian control, in time to make a difference. Identify and remove barriers to trade and investment. Identify and remove impediments to decision/execution cycles.

The obvious facial aim is to have tariffs lifted, but the underlying real aim is to offset the probable recessionary effect of tariffs with anti-recessionary effects. The latter is the aim we should select and maintain, because it is entirely under our control and does not require influencing Trump. All we really have to do to solve the "crisis" is offset approximately 2% of contraction with 2% of growth. Back-of-the-envelope calculations that have been available for years suggest there are more than enough opportunities to do so within our own country; we just need to choose and execute on enough of them.

We are currently led by donkies - Trudeau, Ford, Eby.
 
I am going to go on a bit of a rant here, so I apologize in advance.

Other than the fact that the Wall Street Journal just called trump's tariffs "the stupidest trade move in history" (which earned them a Trump tirade on social media), he does seem to have a complete lack of understanding of what the words he uses mean.

"We subsidize Canada $200B a year". I will admit to not reviewing the US government budget in extensive details, but I am reasonably sure there is no line item in there called "subsidies to Canada". While governmental organizations do tally up trade figures to follow trends in the economy, the US - a country - does not buy from Canada - another country, or at least very little. Individuals and individual companies from one country buys from individuals and individual companies from the other country. In countries like Canada and the US, all of these purchases are made freely and without duress by these individuals. They do so because they find the price right, or because it's the only place they can buy such or such product, or because they are buying from a friend to help, or any other multitude of reason that is personal to them - but they do not, repeat, not buy because they are forced to subsidize the other nation.

"We don't need their cars, or wood, or steel, ..." Obviously, you do since you buy them freely.

" We defend Canada". No you don't. Canada defends Canada. Period. (I know most of us here think we should defend it more, but that is an internal decision). The US has the largest military budget on earth, not because it defends anyone else, but because it wishes to have a global presence and be the only superpower in the world. It enters freely into various defense agreements with other countries in order to achieve that global presence, but it does so for its own interests and its own interests alone.

"Canada has to do better at its border to stop illegal immigrants and fentanyl from coming into the US". The border services responsible for stopping immigrants and products from coming over a border are the services of the country the immigrants or product tries to enter - not the one they are coming from. It is the US border services job to stop immigrants and fentanyl from entering the US. This simple fact is plainly evident to anyone who has ever crossed a land border by car: there is no border check point of the country you are leaving to stop you from going over the border, only a check point from the country you are about to enter. The above may come as a surprise to Trump, but I suspect he has never crossed a land border (or maybe even seen one) since border services would have come to his jet wherever he flew. Trump is simply trying to get Canada and Mexico to pay for and do the US government work, fentanyl and illegal immigrants just being an excuse.

The above does not mean that countries like Canada and the US shouldn't collaborate in combating crimes that will occur at the border, such as drugs and human smuggling, but while the actual act of smuggling occurs at the border, fighting the criminal operation behind them does not occur there and thus, are not a border issue but a policing issue on which to collaborate. You don't get your neighbour to collaborate with you with threats, especially when you are unwilling to reciprocate by addressing our border issues such as not dealing with refugee claimants but passing them on to us illegally or not stopping the flow of illegal guns. Besides, our police forces already collaborate on these various issues and there was no need to go ballistic on us.

"They don't respect us". Sorry, you don't get a pass on that one: You keep saying it but have yet to provide a single instance. Trump not liking our PM, or perhaps having been bested by a Canadian company in the past (unsurprising since he is such a lousy businessman or negotiator), or not liking that we were tougher negotiators than he thought does not equate to Canada as a nation not respecting the US as a nation. I, and most Canadians I know of, have great respect for the USA, the American people generally, and, at least until Trump in my personal case, great respect for the office of the President of the United States. That doesn't mean that on an individual basis, some Canadians have no respect for some Americans, and I am sure, vice-versa.

Anyway, that's now off my chest.

/RANT OFF
 
Supply chains will find a way...


"Supply chains will find a way" means that despite disruptions or challenges, the network of companies and processes involved in getting a product from its raw materials to the consumer will adapt and find alternative methods to continue delivering goods, even if it means adjusting routes, sourcing different suppliers, or implementing new strategies to overcome obstacles.

Key points about this phrase:
  • Resilience:
    It emphasizes the inherent flexibility and adaptability of supply chains, allowing them to weather unexpected events like natural disasters, political instability, or sudden demand shifts.

  • Innovation:
    When faced with disruptions, companies within a supply chain will often innovate to find new solutions, such as utilizing different transportation methods, exploring alternative sourcing options, or leveraging technology to optimize logistics.

  • Market forces:
    The basic economic principle that businesses will strive to meet consumer demand, even if it requires finding new ways to source and deliver products.
Example situations where "supply chains will find a way" might be used:
  • A major port is temporarily closed due to weather, but companies within the supply chain can reroute shipments through different ports or utilize air freight to minimize delays.

  • A key component becomes scarce due to a production issue, prompting companies to explore alternative suppliers or redesign products to use different materials.

  • A geopolitical conflict disrupts trade routes, leading businesses to identify new trade partners or adjust shipping lanes to navigate around affected regions.

A major problem for Canada is that when the US supply chains "find a way" to avoid the problems of cross border trade with Canada they may not revert back. Canada implementing retaliatory tariffs only make this potential greater. There is a cost for US companies to permanently adjust their supply chains but if they see the US tariffs as a temporary phenomenon to be endured while the Trump administration and Canada work out their issues at the border they may choose to put up with higher costs (in either tariffs or more expensive alternate supply chains).

However, if this turns into a protracted tit-for-tat trade war and Canada is no longer seen as a safe and secure supplier in the long term then US companies may make the investments to permanently cut Canada out of their supply chains. The problem for Canada then is Geography. We've been both blessed and cursed by our relative physical isolation from the rest of the World except the United States. Blessed by being next to the largest economy in the World which acts as a natural market for our products and resources so long as there are limited barriers to trade. Cursed in that our physical distance from other World markets makes our products more expensive to export due to the high cost of transportation.
If adversaries taking advantage of the situation is a worry, we shouldn't take a second step (Trump took the first) which escalates and militates that situation.

People are too easily goaded into following one mistake with another because they can't control their tempers and think rationally. That their emotions are not in check is visible on the faces they present to cameras. For once it would be useful to consider and follow the contrarian "anti-war" path, instead of the bleating of the sheep who suddenly want to be wolves.

This is an economic dispute, and there is ample empirical evidence that favours maintaining unilateral free-trading practices even in the face of protectionism. Repeat that as long as necessary for the implications to sink in.
I'm with those that feel that our first response should be restrained and laser focused on targeting the concerns that have been publicly (and privately) raised by the Trump administration regarding issues at our border. Showing the US that we are taking decisive and substantive measures to address these issues will give those Americans economically impacted by the US tariffs leverage to push the Trump administration to remove/relax the tariffs which will allow the traditional North-South flow of trade to resume.

Alternately, if the Trump administration does NOT respond positively to resolutions to the highlighted border issues it will force them to admit that the tariffs are for something different...either a global policy to repatriate supply chains domestically across the board regardless of the trade partners being friend or foe...or a serious attempt to use economic force to try and achieve the annexation of Canada. Either may result in a backlash from more moderate American voters but should also then force Canada to reassess our long term plans.

The US as a friend that we're having a temporary argument with is different than a US that is actively trying to dominate us. At that point we need a much different approach. In the meantime I think it's in our best long term interest to try to make sure the relationship remains as generally friendly as possible because geographically and economically we're in a pretty lonely position if the US is no longer our friend.
 
The UK now imports £41bn of energy from Norway every year, according to the Office for National Statistics, up from £19bn as recently as 2019.

I am putting this article in this thread for the same reason that the Donald only put a 10% tariff on oil and gas and not 25%.

Energy is the real currency and least cost wins.

You want to beat Trump then join him in delivering least cost energy. We can not only power least cost industries we can sell least cost fuel.


Britain cannot depend on Norway for electricity – we need our own power​

Labour must roll back its pursuit of net zero and prioritise energy self-sufficiency

Matthew Lynn
Related Topics
02 February 2025 1:00pm GMT

The government is on the brink of collapse. Coalition partners have walked out. And a row over energy exports and green rules is shaking the political system.

With so much else going on in the world, we don’t usually pay much attention to Norwegian politics. But perhaps we should. After all, we rely on the country to keep our lights switched on.

We have allowed ourselves to become dangerously dependent on imported power, and no matter how much we may think it is reliable, in a crisis you can only depend on yourself. We need to restore our own oil and gas industry – before it is too late.

If anyone reading this can name a single post-war prime minister from Norway, I would be very surprised. True, Jens Stoltenberg ran Nato for a decade, but he is hardly a household name even in Oslo.

Most of the time, no one pays much attention. It is perfectly understandable that the crisis of last week didn’t capture much attention. Even so, it was dramatic stuff, at least by the standards of Norway.

The Eurosceptic Centre Party – they do things differently in Scandinavia, where the anti-EU campaigners describe themselves as centrists – walked out of its coalition with the ruling Labour party.

Behind the row was a decision about whether to adopt EU standards on green energy and regulation, or whether that was an intolerable infringement of its sovereignty, especially for a country that is not a member. The Labour government may stagger on alone for the next eight months until a general election is held, or it could collapse at any time.

We will find out in the next few days or weeks. The problem for Britain, however, is that without quite realising it, the country has become dangerously dependent on what happens in Norway. We depend on it to keep the lights turned on, and to keep our factories running.

The UK now imports £41bn of energy from Norway every year, according to the Office for National Statistics, up from £19bn as recently as 2019.

It provides 41pc of our gas, without which the power stations would not be able to keep running.

We import another $1bn (£800m) of electricity directly from Norway, the largest single supplier, ahead of the Netherlands (on $980m) and France (on $865m). A map of the UK should probably say in the small print somewhere: “Powered by Norway.”

We can’t do without it. It is not as if we are suddenly going to be able to replace the abundant supply of Norwegian energy from somewhere else. Another 14pc of our gas comes from Qatar, and we would hardly want to increase that given the potential for turmoil always looming in the Gulf and the Middle East. Nor can we afford to suddenly start paying more for our imports.

The UK already has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, with energy costs crippling what little remains of our industry, and triggering a wave of factory closures especially in industries such as chemicals.

And with the energy price cap, and households already struggling with both their power bills and all the green levies at a time when living standards are stagnant extra costs can hardly be passed on to consumers. The blunt reality is this. We need the Norwegian power.

The trouble is, that is completely crazy. With a negligence that borders on the insane the UK has run down its own energy resources. Output has been declining steadily for the last decade, and yet last year gas production fell by another 13pc, and oil by 10pc.

We have refused to license new fields, we have imposed windfall taxes to punish production of the few companies that are still brave enough to try and generate any energy in the UK, and we have a blanket ban in place on fracking, even though there are abundant resources of shale oil and gas in the UK, and the technology has proven itself completely safe in the United States and Canada where output has been booming for years.

Only this week, we made the situation even worse with the decision by a Scottish court to block any further production at two of the North Sea’s largest fields, Jackdaw, which could produce 7m cubic metres of gas a day, or enough for 1.4m homes, and Rosebank, which is estimated to contain up to 500m barrels of oil.

Sure, we are trying to build up wind and solar power to replace it, and slowly building at least one more nuclear reactor, but the alternatives to oil and gas remain unreliable, expensive, and will take many more years to finally come fully on stream. Until then, we still need fossil fuels, and it does not make any difference to the environment whether they come from this country or from somewhere else.

The net result is clear. By running down our own resources, and harrying companies out of existence, we have become dangerously reliant on a handful of other countries for our energy. True, no one expects the Norwegian power supplies to the UK to be closed down any time soon.

In fairness, they need the money as much as we need their gas (although of course Norway has a $1.7 trillion sovereign wealth fund to fall back on). And yet, the political turmoil triggered by energy regulation is a stark reminder of a simple fact.

We may think the supply of electricity from Norway is very stable. But in the end, you can only rely on yourself, and the resources you control directly.

The political turmoil in the country, especially over the rules governing its energy industry and exports, should be a warning that we cannot carry on like this. The UK needs to start becoming self-sufficient in energy once again – before it is too late.


....

PS we can also make a fortune out of carbon capture - not just pumping it back into the ground but turning it into plastics, tomatoes and spooge for animals.


Duckweed, for example, grow fast in warm, CO2 saturated ponds and can be consumed as cattle food.
 

Turning carbon emissions into plastic​

Not only would this reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use, it would have an impact on climate change, lowering greenhouse gas emissions.


Plastic from CO2​

“Instead of using fossil fuel as the feedstock [raw material], you can turn the industry on its head by using waste carbon dioxide by using chemical tricks – this will revolutionise the petrochemical sector,” says Prof Styring, who is also the Director of the UK Centre for Carbon Dioxide Utilization, has been working on this solution for over a dozen years. Currently most of the carbon dioxide is from hydrogen production, but researchers are working towards capturing industrial emissions as well.

Not only would this reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use, it would have an impact on climate change, lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

At the CDUUK, researchers have figured out how to make polyacrylamide from carbon dioxide, for example. “It’s genuinely crazy to think you can make Nylon from carbon dioxide, but we’ve done it,” says Prof Styring.

....

Interesting prospect

Package everything in plastic. Build from plastic.
Burn waste plastic.
Create heat, power and CO2.
Make plastic from CO2
Package everything in plastic. Build from plastic.

Alternately make animal feed from CO2.

...

Why am I heading off on this tangent? Because I believe that these tangents have a greater chance of effectively responding to Trump's tariffs than deciding if Maker's Mark or Jack is worth the sacrifice.
 

There may indeed be Canada-specific, and even Liberal- and Trudeau-specific aspects to the tariffs. But tariffs are in play. And will stay in play.

The EU has reason to be concerned because the EU already imposes tariff and non-tariff barriers on all imports, including, if not especially, US ones.
They have little basis for arguing against them.

We may be able to alter the amount of tariffs, or even their scope, but, I believe, Trump is dedicated to turning tariffs into a reliable revenue stream that can fund government.
 
Canadian tariffs


Tariffs​


Tariffs imposed by Canada in 2022 are below.

  • The maximum rate of tariff in percentage on any product is 522.26.
  • The simple average tariff across all products is 1.84.
  • The trade weighted average tariff is 1.43.
  • The total duty free imports in thousands of US dollars are 428,655,358.26 and duty free tariff line items share is 82.38.

 
Back
Top