Not the last steelworks; just the last blast furnace.
Modern steel production uses electric arc furnaces which are lower capital cost, more versatile, and less polluting - with a source of zero-carbon electricity, they can be GHG-free. Used to be that they were only used for scrap steel, but there is now a process for direct reduction of iron ore into steel, so metallurgical coal is not needed.
It depends what you mean by “Reciprocal.” That usually means “the same” You hit my produts with a 10% tariff and I will hit yours with a 10% tariff. You specifically target my steel, I will target yours.
But in fact those don’t make sense at all, if your intention is to use game theory to dissuade fools from raising tariffs, because it is near certain those tariffs will not be equal in impact. If we are trading, it is likely our economies do not have the same comparative advantages and opportunity costs, which is why we’re trading. How I punch back should consider what specific tariffs will hurt you most and me least; how you punched ME isn’t the point. I am going to hurt myself by responding, but I want to maximize your pain. Retaliatory tariffs, if used right, will almost always be different - look at how Canada is reacting to Trump. When Trump first threatened a 25% tariff on all Canadian things, Canada threatened to respond with tariffs on specific things - almost all of them things that would result in a massive drop in Canadian demand for them because of the availability of alternatives (e.g. banning American liquor, particular foodstuffs, etc.) That’s not reciprocal but it is retaliatory, and it was the smart move, inflicting pain on American business disproportionate to the pain to Canadian consumers.
The Canadian response to the American tariff on cars is essentially reciprocal and is, IMHO, ill-advised (though it’s unclear how many cars the two tariffs even apply to.)
Not quite. EAFs reduce the CO2 output, but aren’t GHG-free. From your own cite:
Depending on the proportions of steel scrap, DRI and pig iron used, electric arc furnace steelmaking can result in carbon dioxide emissions as low as 0.6 tons CO2 per ton of steel produced,[12] which is significantly lower than the conventional production route via blast furnaces and the basic oxygen furnace, which produces 2.9 tons CO2 per ton of steel produced.[13]
Producing metal from ore requires a reduction agent, which usually is coal/coke. Yes, you can use hydrogen for iron production , but that’s… not common.
Moderating:
@Macdoc, in general it’s considered a best practice to include at least a brief summary of a video in P&E, unless it’s an auto-displaying GIF, which this one was not. I’ve added one for you at this time.
This is just a guidance, not a warning. Nothing on your permanent record.
I tried but said cannot embed - you added test description
that can work
Discourse (the board software) has a known issue with videos, such as those from Youtube, generating that error if you try to edit. Here’s a link to the work arounds!
This article from April 10 says the reason Trump ‘paused’ tariffs was because countries that hold U.S. Treasury bonds, led by Canada, threatened advised Trump that they could sell their bonds and destroy the United States economy.
- A slow, coordinated sell-off isn’t a bluff; it’s a quiet gut punch that would take the US YEARS to recover from.
Thread discussing it:
I’m not sure if I should believe the post before last. It sounds somewhat like something debunked last month:
Snopes, as of yesterday, seems unsure but leaning towards not true:
Carney’s hardly likely to admit it, is he?
If he actually wants to win a parliamentary majority on April 28, yes, Carney should admit it.
The Dean Blundell substack claims that you can verify this by looking at publicly available trading totals. The Canadian Press seems to agree except for saying that similar moves occur annually.
I’m not doing my own research on this one.
Yes, Canada should publicly admit that they threatened to destroy the American economy!
That couldn’t even possibly be spun into an act of war and the casus belli for an American invasion.
Not unknown as a tactic. Didn’t Eisenhower threaten to do the same or similar to the UK and France over Suez?
If Canada and its friends are capable of exerting such strong economic pressure on the US that the US is forced to back down from tariffs - or as you put it, “destroy the American economy” - one would imagine they would be able to do the same thing in the event of an American invasion of Canada.
There are plenty of other diplomatic reasons for Canada not to announce their role in this, it any; but fear of invasion isn’t it.
Well it didn’t work well for Canada; no tariff against Canada was lowered. So if Mark Carney was responsible for this, he didn’t help us.