Contributor: Ted Brackemyre

Do we want the benefits of the Section 232 tariffs to flow to the bottom lines of foreign steel and aluminum producers or to the US government and, ultimately, domestic manufacturers and their workers? In our view, the answer is simple. Section 232 exceptions do nothing more than lead to underserved profits for foreign manufacturers who are harming the US industrial base. That revenue could be used to pursue the Trump administration’s other policy priorities - such as deficit reduction or expanded tax cuts.

The day-to-day bustle of these announcements should not obscure what they signal for other potential tariff measures in the near term and a revamped trade and economic policy in the long term. 

The OECD Steel Committee convened its 96th session last week in Paris, along with the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity. The event brought together 250 government and industry delegates from 40 of the largest steel-producing countries. The Committee’s discussions and presentations were clear: Steel markets worldwide are in dire straits.

Earlier this month, Nippon Steel announced that it is applying for subsidies under the Japanese government’s Green Transformation Promotion Act to expand the company’s electric furnace steelmaking capabilities and to convert from blast furnace to electric furnace operations. As we have said before, transitioning from blast furnace- to electric furnace-based steelmaking is a good thing […]

The only way to achieve net zero goals worldwide is to significantly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the global steel industry. And emissions standards can play a key role in encouraging (or discouraging) steel decarbonization. In that spirit, earlier this year, the Biden administration established a climate and trade task force, aimed at a promoting “a global trading system that slashes pollution, creates a fair and level playing field, protects against carbon dumping, {and} supports good manufacturing jobs and economic opportunity.” These are ambitious and laudable goals. Across sectors, the United States has a significant carbon advantage over many of its economic competitors. This is certainly true in the steel industry, where American manufacturers are among the lowest emitting in the world. In other words, when it comes to steel, climate-focused trade policy can go hand-in-hand with US competitiveness.

North America has one of the most robust steel scrap markets in the world. The continent has a long history of steel production, significant imports of steel and steel-containing products, and mature steel consumption. Due to this, the reservoir of scrap available to be recycled each year in the US and other North American markets is substantial and growing.

When it comes to steel decarbonization, we do not need to compromise our climate ambition to make the types of demanding steel products needed for our 21st-century economy. Nevertheless, many of the world’s highest-emitting steel producers and their allies would have you believe that one cannot be done without the other. They are wrong. They […]

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) appropriated more than $4 billion to the General Services Administration (GSA) and Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) for “Buy Clean” programs. The statute makes clear that GSA and FHWA purchases under these programs are limited to those with “substantially lower” emissions. There is no ambiguity in that requirement. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has defined “substantially lower” to mean products with the lowest 20% of embodied emissions when compared to similar materials.