Trump’s Tariffs Might Be the Green Policy Nobody Saw Coming

By Melanie Collette

For all the buzz about “going green,” much of the technology touted by the Green Left to move our nation to “Net Zero” — specifically solar panels and EV batteries — comes from places where the sky is choked with smog and rivers run with industrial waste.  And while these same critics often dismiss Donald Trump’s tariffs as economic saber-rattling, in reality, the President’s policies carry significant and underappreciated environmental benefits.

Tariffs are an unlikely ally in the fight against pollution. They incentivize domestic production, tighten environmental standards, and hold foreign manufacturers accountable for environmental negligence.

In a world where environmental goals often live on paper but die in execution, tariffs provide real leverage. They shift incentives in the right direction without depending on lengthy negotiations, uncertain compliance, or idealistic assumptions about global unity.

Tariffs as Environmental Filters

By imposing tariffs on imports from countries with looser environmental regulations, Trump’s trade policy incentivizes companies to manufacture domestically, where environmental protections are stronger and enforcement is more robust. Critics call it economic nationalism, but the reality is more nuanced: the policy functions as an ecological safeguard, reducing reliance on countries like China, which is ranked as the 13th most polluted nation in the world.

China’s dominant production of rare earth elements (REE) has led to significant environmental degradation. The Bayan Obo mine, one of the world’s most significant REE sources, has been associated with extensive soil and water pollution. Reports indicate that the mining process yields substantial amounts of waste gas, wastewater, and radioactive residue, contaminating local ecosystems and posing health risks to nearby communities.

And here’s something most people overlook — when manufacturing stays closer to home, it’s easier to track environmental violations and enforce rules. Transparency skyrockets when the EPA, OSHA, and other regulatory agencies are just a phone call away, not an ocean apart.

Trump’s administration is also leveraging Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act to impose tariffs on foreign processed minerals. The goal? Reduce foreign dependence and revive domestic production of critical materials like rare earth elements, essential for clean tech and defense.

The result is a renewed focus on U.S.-based mining and processing, offering a cleaner, more transparent alternative to China’s pollution-heavy rare earth industry. A stronger domestic rare earths sector is a win for national security and the environment. Environmental accountability increases when these materials are mined and processed under U.S. regulation.

The Dirty Truth Behind “Clean” Tech

Let’s be honest: outsourcing green tech to countries with weak environmental laws doesn’t eliminate emissions, but does outsource them. This phenomenon, known as “pollution leakage,” erodes the benefits we claim to pursue.

While the West celebrates progress in so-called green energy, producing those “eco-friendly” goods is often carried out in developing world factories. More than that, this behavior masks the real cost of green technologies. Products may seem “cheap” to consumers, but their environmental impact — from polluted rivers to toxic waste — remains largely unaccounted for.

Trump’s tariff strategy encourages manufacturers to source from countries with higher environmental standards or bring production back home. Case studies show that reshoring delivers economic and environmental benefits, especially in energy and heavy industry sectors. Cleaner supply chains begin with better accountability, which tariffs are uniquely positioned to provide.

When production happens domestically, enforcing environmental controls, adopting green manufacturing processes, and implementing technological innovations like low-emission machining are easier. However, these advancements are often out of reach for foreign suppliers focused solely on cost-cutting.

Global Environmental Agreements: Big Promises, Weak Results

The mainstream media heralded the Biden administration’s return to multilateral climate agreements like the Paris Accord as ” planet-saving,” but real-world results have been underwhelming. These international frameworks lack enforcement, largely exempt the biggest emitters, and allow countries to manipulate statistics to validate their progress in achieving their commitments.

Trump’s policies emphasize sovereignty, which doesn’t mean ignoring the environment. Using trade policy to reinforce domestic environmental protections proves the two priorities are compatible.  Environmental stewardship doesn’t require surrendering control to global institutions. Sometimes it just requires enforcing the rules at home — and setting an example others can’t ignore.

A Practical Path Forward

As the U.S. continues to navigate complex environmental and economic challenges, tariffs can be part of the solution. President Trump’s tariffs protect jobs and the environment, even if critics fail to notice.

Rather than relying solely on lofty international promises, we should consider practical tools, like tariffs, that create real accountability, cleaner production, and stronger domestic resilience.

In an era of performative climate politics, tariffs might just be the unexpected, effective piece of environmental policy we’ve been missing.

Melanie Collette is a Policy Analyst at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

4.6 16 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

24 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scissor
May 31, 2025 6:59 am

Green doesn’t mean clean. It means money.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Scissor
May 31, 2025 7:14 am

It also means waste, fraud, and abuse.

David A
Reply to  Scissor
May 31, 2025 8:51 pm

With CO2 green means all bio-life.

Rich Davis
May 31, 2025 7:43 am

What a load of crap. There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!

I’m highly skeptical of the protectionist tariffs but one good thing would be to make solar panels unaffordable.

Eric Schollar
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 31, 2025 7:53 am

Just make consumers pay the actual cost – that will end “renewable” energy quicker than anything else.

strativarius
May 31, 2025 7:48 am

The Orwellian filter is required for any ‘green’ claims – war is peace etc.

It’s all out of sight and out of mind. All of the environmental damage done by the ‘pursuit’ of clean, renewable (neo-mediaeval) energy goes unseen and nobody cares. They don’t care about the damage and they certainly don’t care about child and slave labour.

When it comes to Trump and nobody seeing it coming…

The White House has confirmed it is “monitoring” the case of Lucy Connolly, who was jailed over her Southport tweet. The move escalates tensions between the Trump administration and the British government over freedom of expression.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2060065/lucy-connolly-case-white-house-free-speech

Thought crime is now the worst possible crime.

Reply to  strativarius
May 31, 2025 1:33 pm

What did she say? I went The Express but there was no mention of what she actually said. Prisons are for dangerous criminals who commit felonies.

MarkW
Reply to  Harold Pierce
May 31, 2025 5:32 pm

Her words were so dangerous, they can not be repeated, even describing her words puts ones soul in danger. /sarc

Reply to  MarkW
May 31, 2025 9:55 pm

I did a search on: “What did Lucy Conolly say” and got a her racist comments that she posted on X. Not nice, but I suspect there are probably a lot people who agree with her views.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
May 31, 2025 10:19 pm

‘Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it.’

This was posted in the immediate aftermath of a schizophrenic son of a hutu migrant stabbing multiple children to death. She deleted it a few hours later, presumably having calmed down a bit. For this single comment, she received a longer sentence than some of the men convicted for years-long participation in organised rape gangs, some of whom were allowed to walk free immediately after sentencing.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Archer
May 31, 2025 10:54 pm

Yes, but she is not part of a protected minority group and UK law is racist. Organised grape gangs is just one of the things you have to accept in a “multicultural society”, it’s all part of “diversity is our strength”. If you don’t like that, you need to go and live in a less open and tolerant society, like Pakistan, for example.

Reply to  strativarius
May 31, 2025 11:00 pm

Sorry, Strat, I agree with much of what you say – probably because we’re both Brits.

With Connolly, I respectfully disagree.

Connolly, a former Conservative councillor, was jailed because of her tweet, in which she stated that the hotels housing the illegal immigrants should be set on fire with the illegals still in.

We should be sending back the illegals, but her words, in the emotional aftermath of the Southport killings, could easily have incited some people into acting on her words.

Whether the sentence is appropriate or not is a different question.

Reply to  Redge
June 1, 2025 4:00 am

The only person responsible for their actions the person who acts.

Besides, there was no immediate call to action in her post, in regard to burning down hotels. It’s not even a troublesome priest issue; she only voiced her opinion on whether she would care if they were burned. She never said they should be burned down, only that she didn’t care if they were.

Given they didn’t incite anyone, and given the police now admit that the protests were organic and not sparked by online incitement, there is literally no justification for either her conviction or her sentence.

max
Reply to  Redge
June 1, 2025 5:59 am

It is easier to enforce “crimes” committed by normal people than to actually go after criminals. How many were murdered to incite her reaction? How many young English women were raped by rape gangs? There’s the rub, “gangs” indicate numerous participants with a twisted view of right and wrong. This woman is alone, a far easier “get” than a bunch of troublemakers.

May 31, 2025 9:00 am

For years, whenever summer arrived, one could hear lively complaints that there were no real summers anymore. Older people, in particular, were able to vividly describe the heat and unchanging constancy of those summer months when they were still young, and the more gloomily the cool, rainy weeks followed one another in recent years, the more magnificently the sun-drenched dog days of long-gone times appeared in their memories.

Meteorology – The hot, dry summer of 1911
I recommand to translate that historical text completely.

May 31, 2025 9:43 am

Going Green means tattooing yourself with cartoons.

All green thinking people I talk to do that. It’s the latest fashion they tell me. I don’t know why, it looks silly.

Ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  doonman
May 31, 2025 10:38 am

Here in Nevada almost everyone does it. It is the rare person who does not wear tats. Not so much in the rural areas (where we live) but definitely in Reno, Las Vegas, and their burbs.

derbrix
Reply to  Ex-KaliforniaKook
May 31, 2025 12:45 pm

Tattoos might look somewhat OK on skin that is fine & healthy when done by an actual “artiste”. The major problem comes up when that skin ages as normal and the designs engraved lose the crisp lines to a very blurred image. The ‘sleeves’ are perhaps the worst.

When I worked in Corporate during the early Naughties, tattoos had to be covered completely by the normal business attire. Many of the recent college graduates then couldn’t get hired with their very visible facial & hand tattoos. Wearing gloves and keyboarding doesn’t work well.

max
Reply to  derbrix
June 1, 2025 6:08 am

I’ve always viewed tattoos as a way of “taking control” of something that nobody really cares about. Want to mark up your own skin? Fine, it’s yours. Then of course, after the first one doesn’t garner the desired attention, time to get another, which will garner even less. The idea may be that it puts you more “in touch” with people of the past also may be at play, but that’s just mystical goofiness. Get some if you want them, but try to avoid attaching any kind of quasi-meaning to them.

George Thompson
Reply to  doonman
May 31, 2025 1:30 pm

Worse, I think. Tats-I’ve read variously-affect the liver badly in the long run. Maybe subsequent brain damage?

Greg Goodman
Reply to  George Thompson
May 31, 2025 10:57 pm

That brain damage comes first, before the tats.

oeman50
Reply to  doonman
June 1, 2025 6:37 am

A few years ago I thought about getting a tattoo of a pet gerbil I was very fond of that had just died. (OK, OK, I know.)

So I did a search for gerbil tattoos. The result at the top was Justin Beber’s gerbil tattoo.

I still don’t have any tattoos.

Greg Goodman
May 31, 2025 10:36 pm

Tariffs, if anything more than a temporary threat mechanism, will cause an economic crisis likely worse than the Great Depression. The “net zero” will be GDP !!!

max
Reply to  Greg Goodman
June 1, 2025 6:01 am

If it’s anything like climate change, this will hit when’we’re all dead and gone.