Fellow liberals, am I the only one who actually supports Trump’s tariffs (for environmental reasons)?

r/

I’m not here to sway anyone’s opinion, but I wanted to share why I think the tariffs are actually painful—but a good thing in the long run.

Global supply chains carry a massive environmental cost. I just can’t support the current system in good conscience. I know regular folks all over the world will feel the economic pain from tariffs. But if the long-term result is a more localized economy, I think that’s a win for the planet.

Trump didn’t introduce tariffs for climate or sustainability, probably the opposite. But by slowing down global trade, we end up with less waste, fewer pointless shipments, and maybe more demand for products that actually last and can be repaired.

Local or regional production isn’t perfect either. But it’s easier to regulate, and transport emissions are lower. There’s a bit more accountability.

Obviously, if you’re currently dropshipping random junk from China, the tariffs are bad news. The economy becomes simpler, product variety might shrink, and some sectors will take real damage. I’m not denying the downsides. But if one side effect is that people buy less, buy better, and we reduce our dependence on fragile, polluting supply chains, maybe that’s not a bad trade.

So does anyone else from the left see even a silver lining in the tariffs? Or is it economy and stock market first even in most socially liberal circles?

I get it that Donald’s reason for the tariffs isn’t about the environment at all, but i think as a result the global economy will be healthier to our planet.

Comments

  1. AutoModerator Avatar

    The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.

    I’m not here to sway anyone’s opinion, but I wanted to share why I think the tariffs are actually painful—but a good thing in the long run.

    Global supply chains carry a massive environmental cost. I just can’t support the current system in good conscience. I know regular folks all over the world will feel the economic pain from tariffs. But if the long-term result is a more localized economy, I think that’s a win for the planet.

    Trump didn’t introduce tariffs for climate or sustainability, probably the opposite. But by slowing down global trade, we end up with less waste, fewer pointless shipments, and maybe more demand for products that actually last and can be repaired.

    Local or regional production isn’t perfect either. But it’s easier to regulate, and transport emissions are lower. There’s a bit more accountability.

    Obviously, if you’re currently dropshipping random junk from China, the tariffs are bad news. The economy becomes simpler, product variety might shrink, and some sectors will take real damage. I’m not denying the downsides. But if one side effect is that people buy less, buy better, and we reduce our dependence on fragile, polluting supply chains, maybe that’s not a bad trade.

    So does anyone else from the left see even a silver lining in the tariffs? Or is it economy and stock market first even in most socially liberal circles?

    I get it that Donald’s reason for the tariffs isn’t about the environment at all, but i think as a result the global economy will be healthier to our planet.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

  2. LucidLeviathan Avatar

    These benefits are entirely speculative and so far removed from practical application to be entirely irrelevant. If we want to reduce greenhouse gasses – and we should – we need to regulate companies. We can’t fix it on the consumer end.

  3. TheCardboardDinosaur Avatar

    and im a conservative that doesnt haha
    crazy world

  4. StrangeButSweet Avatar

    What supports your assertion that these tariffs and the associated global economic pain will automatically lead to a more localized economy at any significant scale?

  5. greatteachermichael Avatar

    The vast majority of pollution that is made doesn’t happen during shipping. With crops, for example, it’s better to grow them where they grow best than to grow them and need more fertilizer and land. Plus, it’s less polluting to ship a large quantity of things in mass than to do lots of little local trips.

  6. DreamingMerc Avatar

    I’m not going to defend the giant capitalism machine we built. It’s not great, and it’s full of exploitative horse shit … it’s also how we all have to live. For now, anyway.

    That’s not an excuse to keep it going, but recognizing there is a transition and massive support needed to make that transition without a massive blowback effect. Mostly through state and federal protections for workers. Small businesses and social safety nets … we did not of that and are drilling holls in the support structures we have now.

    Enjoy the fall…

  7. BozoFromZozo Avatar

    Tariffs will push the world into recession, possibly depression and that will increase human death. Combined with Trump’s mass deportation and gutting of federal agencies that help mitigate such things like disasters and disease and I think we’re in for a lot of pain and suffering.

  8. MrMarbles2000 Avatar

    https://www.google.com/search?q=international+maritime+industry%27s+carbon+footprint

    a whopping 3%

    What you’re basically advocating is for people to be poorer, with at best questionable upsides.

  9. wizardnamehere Avatar

    No.

    It costs less carbon and pollution to ship a crate of cabbages across an ocean than it does to truck from across the city to your store (let alone from the farm to a logistical hub).

    The difference made by the shipping portion is relatively meaningless. Further most domestic produce probably has a higher carbon foot print simple due to all the trucking. What matters are the modes and means of production.