Trump's Tariffs

[aleCcowaN]

Ah, I just realized you may have been asking if 100 species' extinction for clearcutting a few thousand hectares of North American old growth was an overestimation.

No, it's actually very conservative. "Ghost with Trembling Wings" is a recent nonfiction book on the topic of the Anthropocene aka Sixth Mass Extinction, which is our current biosphere era.

The main point, though, is that a tree farm is not a forest. It has <1% of the biodiversity.

Without denying anything you're saying here, I thought your "hundreds of species" was hyperbole when Canadian forests are to be considered. A different thing would be the Amazonian Basin.

I share your concerns and yet applaud tree farming: a small area produces the same as a great extension of natural forest, which is left alone.

In my country there's a lot of tree farming in areas where there weren't trees for thousands of years, increasing biodiversity. Natural forests and real biodiversity are at risk because of agriculture, not tree farming.

 

[aleCcowaN]

You advocated natural reforestation, which would take 200-2000 years and ain't gonna happen.

I did, but it didn't make sense. You're recommending reforesting,

You're mistreating MikeG as if he were an American (Usaian or Canadian) talking local.

Of course what he says makes total sense as the UK can show it daily in action, and in the other side of the pond there's a lot of madness and ignorance going on. Is that news at all?

You would do well in learning how the UK is systematically and structurally dealing with the remains of her natural forests and other natural landscapes.

 

[blutoski]

Without denying anything you're saying here, I thought your "hundreds of species" was hyperbole when Canadian forests are to be considered. A different thing would be the Amazonian Basin.

I think you even underestimate the Amazonian Basin. The main factor is species geographic footprint. Crawling insects have a very small footprint, so a hectare of forest, with its vertical strata from root to canopy, can have dozens of unique species. That's why I mentioned Ghost with Trembling Wings - the author is an ecological impact specialist, and typically finds 75-125 geographically restricted species per US forest analysis; the analysis is typically restricted to two individual trees 1km apart. That is, in a hectare, there's maybe around 100 species that just live there and nowhere else in the world.

The regions I was specifically considering were the old growth US forests that are being removed from protection as part of the recent White House review of national parks. They're preserved today due to a mix of aesthetic and biodiversity protection rationales. Some of these are the last footprints for hundreds of thousands of species.

I share your concerns and yet applaud tree farming: a small area produces the same as a great extension of natural forest, which is left alone.

In my country there's a lot of tree farming in areas where there weren't trees for thousands of years, increasing biodiversity. Natural forests and real biodiversity are at risk because of agriculture, not tree farming.

Globally maybe, but these *specific* USA acreages are old growth, and the primary lobbyists pushing for their removal from protection are logging firms, in conjunction with pushing for tariffs against imported softwood lumber, the goal being to use up domestic inventory.

 

[blutoski]

You're mistreating MikeG as if he were an American (Usaian or Canadian) talking local.

Of course what he says makes total sense as the UK can show it daily in action, and in the other side of the pond there's a lot of madness and ignorance going on. Is that news at all?

You would do well in learning how the UK is systematically and structurally dealing with the remains of her natural forests and other natural landscapes.

The UK was not the forests I was discussing, so perhaps it was just a misunderstanding - he was commenting off topic, and I didn't notice. If Americans product switch to softwood to replace expensive metal construction materials, they are not going to dip into the UK inventory - they are planning to take advantage of new domestic acreages.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think the misunderstanding was MikeG thinking that Americans could ramp up wood farming or some sort of proper harvesting techniques when taking wood from public lands when the reality is that the Trump administration is simply looking to clearcut lots of old growth forests. If we protected our forests then tree farming or proper harvesting techniques would make some sense in this discussion, but the reality is that we don't protect our forests and they are vast.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I think you even underestimate the Amazonian Basin. The main factor is species geographic footprint. Crawling insects have a very small footprint, so a hectare of forest, with its vertical strata from root to canopy, can have dozens of unique species ...

But you were talking of species going extinct, weren't you? That was the hype. Nobody denies biodiversty drops 99% when you plant an artificial forest with trees aligned like soldiers or more like gravestones in a cemetery. 99%, locally. But how much wood do you think the world needs? Unless we're talking of replacing oil and natural gas...

 

[blutoski]

I think the misunderstanding was MikeG thinking that Americans could ramp up wood farming or some sort of proper harvesting techniques when taking wood from public lands when the reality is that the Trump administration is simply looking to clearcut lots of old growth forests. If we protected our forests then tree farming or proper harvesting techniques would make some sense in this discussion, but the reality is that we don't protect our forests and they are vast.

My concern was with these old growth forests in particular. When we clearcut old growth, we lose a few unique species per hectare. Recovering forests obtain different species from adjacent forests - they do not miraculously re-spawn the extinct local species. Over time, this generates a lower biodiversity, which is considered a negative ecological impact and has a similar risk profile to commercial monoculture.

We're seeing it in BC, where clearcutting has not been replaced by deliberately monocultured tree farms, but the naturally recovering forests are all the same species, pioneered from neighbouring old growth patch by patch over the last century. Tens of thousands of hyperlocal / hectare-footprint species are simply gone forever.

 

[blutoski]

But you were talking of species going extinct, weren't you? That was the hype. Nobody denies biodiversty drops 99% when you plant an artificial forest with trees aligned like soldiers or more like gravestones in a cemetery. 99%, locally. But how much wood do you think the world needs? Unless we're talking of replacing oil and natural gas...

It's not about that, it's just the one-time destruction of old growth in and of itself is an extinction activity, due to hyperlocal species with very small geographic footprints. Once they're gone, they're gone, and it doesn't matter whether you replace the hectares with monoculture or reforestation, they are gone forever.

 

[aleCcowaN]

..., due to hyperlocal species with very small geographic footprints...

I sincerely doubt that. You're just extending features typical of the tropical rainforest to BC. Not that there are no biological niches and that species have developed special adaptations. That's why they are polyploids. The same genes will eventually reappear.

You're raffling your credibility by abusing of the words extinct and extinction just in order to cause an emotional reaction.

 

[blutoski]

I sincerely doubt that. You're just extending features typical of the tropical rainforest to BC.

I think you're skimming my posts. I'm explicitly *not* talking about BC. I'm talking about US old growth, which have examples in several states, which is in play as part of the imminent trade war.

Not that there are no biological niches and that species have developed special adaptations. That's why they are polyploids. The same genes will eventually reappear.

I'm not sure where you get that theory, and I'm not sure why you think polyploids are some sort of solution.

You're raffling your credibility by abusing of the words extinct and extinction just in order to cause an emotional reaction.

Well, not sure how you're reading my mind to establish motive, but let me share my actual motive: I'm not trying to 'cause an emotional reaction' - I'm just trying to covey the facts as I see them.

I appreciate you think the numbers are extreme, but I disagree. I'm not just talking about large vertebrates. I think it's just a misunderstanding about context at this point.

 

[aleCcowaN]

You're raffling your credibility by abusing of the words extinct and extinction just in order to cause an emotional reaction.

Well, not sure how you're reading my mind to establish motive, but let me share my actual motive: I'm not trying to 'cause an emotional reaction' - I'm just trying to covey the facts as I see them.

I appreciate you think the numbers are extreme, but I disagree. I'm not just talking about large vertebrates. I think it's just a misunderstanding about context at this point.

And the context includes this sub-topic hijacking a thread about Trump's tariffs through what looks to be little more than argumenta ad consequentiam.

Look, I don't doubt Trump's cronies would like to raze up millions of acres of natural reserves to do good business and only keep the youngest trees if they are paid to do so, but that doesn't relate with the consideration of the possible trade war that is incubating now; topic nobody is talking about because the place is occupied with ruminations about how fragile are in theory ecosystems located at latitudes where there's a thermal amplitude of 100° every year.

 

[aleCcowaN]

If the EU levies additional tariffs over USA exports, who will that affect?

For instance, on Harley Davidson bikes:

The company's headquarters are in Milwaukee (65% votes for Clinton, 28% for Trump). The company has 4 factories. The only one situated in a blue county (Jackson -Kansas City-) is being consolidates with one of the three remaining, which are located in York Country, PA (63% Trump, 33% Clinton); Lincoln County, PA (58% Trump, 37% Clinton) and Waukesha County (part of Great Milwaukee), WI (62% Trump, 33% Clinton).

I hope all those sanctions are surgically designed to target Republican areas, as exports from the USA are much more likely to be produced in blue areas than in red areas. In that way, tens of thousands of people to be let go will be mostly Trump voters, what somewhat is poetic justice.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Politico say that they have the EU's target list:
https://www.politico.eu/article/eus-anti-trump-hit-list-everything-including-the-kitchen-sink/

Direct link to the list:
https://g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1-wp...oads/2018/03/POLITICO-EU-retaliation-list.pdf

 

[Samson]

This guy talks colloquial, hilarious for the observer with no dog in fight.

"European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has said his bloc planned to hit back at the United States by imposing tariffs on targeted US products.

"This is basically a stupid process, the fact that we have to do this. But we have to do it," Juncker said. "We can also do stupid."

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Any people from affected states here?

What will a tariff on cranberry exports do to Wisconsin, eg?

 

[aleCcowaN]

The Wall Street Journal: Trump Signs Metals Tariffs Sparing Some Allies

In the meanwhile I'll be watching in order to join any local rally against Trump and his United States. These tariffs are equivalent to banning another 770 USD millions in exports from Argentina to the States, in this case, raw aluminium and seamless steel pipes (from their largest manufacturer in the world, Argentine company Tenaris).

Up to now, barriers on 40% of our exports to the USA has being confirmed, reinforced or set by Trump's administration, and this moment our imports from the USA more than double our exports to the same market. That's intolerable. I'm not alone in thinking our government is too weak and sanctions over all imports from the USA must be set. It's the least we can do.

 

[Fudbucker]

The Wall Street Journal: Trump Signs Metals Tariffs Sparing Some Allies

In the meanwhile I'll be watching in order to join any local rally against Trump and his United States. These tariffs are equivalent to banning another 770 USD millions in exports from Argentina to the States, in this case, raw aluminium and seamless steel pipes (from their largest manufacturer in the world, Argentine company Tenaris).

Up to now, barriers on 40% of our exports to the USA has being confirmed, reinforced or set by Trump's administration, and this moment our imports from the USA more than double our exports to the same market. That's intolerable. I'm not alone in thinking our government is too weak and sanctions over all imports from the USA must be set. It's the least we can do.

The U.S. is having the same problem with other countries, on a much larger scale.

 

[aleCcowaN]

The U.S. is having the same problem with other countries, on a much larger scale.

But, we've never raised tariffs on countries to control our deficits.

If the United States is a vacuum cleaner of global capitals and a strong exporter of services thus making for a deficit in the tradable goods sector, that's their problem.

I have more figures: Argentina exports 6 billions in goods and services to the United States and imports 17 billions a year. Argentina has to stop most commercial exchanges at once to make this abuse to cease, starting with 2 billions in imports of motor oil, pork and aircraft, just to make for the 2 billions of our exports Trump has -in practical terms- prohibited just during the last 6 months.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The critical question: what is the US going to do with the income from the tariffs? Help the steel and aluminum industry upgrade to the newest technology to become more competitive?
Because otherwise the tariffs will have to be steadily increased to prop up a failing industry.

 

[The Don]

The critical question: what is the US going to do with the income from the tariffs? Help the steel and aluminum industry upgrade to the newest technology to become more competitive?
Because otherwise the tariffs will have to be steadily increased to prop up a failing industry.

IMO it's nothing to do with those industries (otherwise I'm sure there are more effective ways of funding improvements) and everything to do with political posturing.