Donald Trump is keen to lower US interest rates substantially and rapidly in order to provide a boost to the US economy. He is also keen to reduce the cost of living for US citizens and sees lower interest rates as a means of reducing the burden of debt servicing for both consumers and firms alike.
But interest rates are set by the US central bank, the Federal Reserve (the ‘Fed’), which is formally independent from government. This independence is seen as important for providing stability to the US economy and removing monetary policy from short-term political pressures to cut interest rates. Succumbing to political pressures would be likely to create uncertainty and damage long-term stability and growth.
Yet President Trump is pushing the Fed to lower interest rates rapidly and despite three cuts in a row of 0.25 percentage points in the last part of 2025 (see chart below), he thinks this as too little and is annoyed by suggestions that the Fed is unlikely to lower rates again for a while. He has put great pressure on Jerome Powell, the Fed Chair, to go further and faster and has threatened to replace him before his term expires in May this year. He has also made clear that he is likely to appoint someone more willing to cutting rates.
The Federal Reserve headquarters in Washington is currently being renovated. The nine-year project is costing $2.5 billion and is due to be completed next year. President Trump has declared that the project’s costs are excessive and unnecessary.
On 11 January, Federal prosecutors confirmed that they were opening a criminal investigation into Powell, accusing him of lying to Congress in his June 2025 testimony regarding the scope and costs of the renovations.
Powell responded by posting a video in which he claimed that the real reason that he was being threatened with criminal charges was not because of the renovations but because the Fed had ignored President Trump’s pressure and had set interest rates:
based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions – or whether, instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.
The Fed’s mandate
The Federal Reserve Board decides on monetary policy and then the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decides how to carry it out. It decides on interest rates and asset sales or purchases. The FOMC meets eight times a year.
The Fed is independent of both the President and Congress, and its Chair is generally regarded as having great power in determining the country’s economic policy.
Since 1977, the Fed’s statutory mandate has been to promote the goals of stable prices and maximum employment. Because of the reference to both prices and employment, the mandate is commonly referred to as a ‘dual mandate’. Its inflation target is 2 per cent over the long run with ‘well anchored’ inflationary expectations.
The dual mandate is unlike that of the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan and most other central banks, which all have a single key mandate of achieving a target of a 2 per cent annual rate of consumer price inflation over a particular time period.
With a dual mandate, the two objectives may well conflict from time to time. Moreover, changes in monetary policy affect these objectives with a lag and potentially over different time horizons. Hence, an assessment may have to be made of which is the most pressing problem. This does give some leeway in setting interest rates somewhat lower than if there were a single inflation-rate target. Nevertheless, the assessment is in terms of how best to achieve the mandate and not to meet current political goals.
Statement by former Fed Chairs and Governors
On 12 January, three former Chairs of the Federal Reserve (Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan), four former Treasury Secretaries (Timothy Geithner, Jacob Lew, Henry Paulson and Robert Rubin) and seven other top former economic officials issued the following statement (see Substack link in the Articles section below):
The Federal Reserve’s independence and the public’s perception of that independence are critical for economic performance, including achieving the goals Congress has set for the Federal Reserve of stable prices, maximum employment, and moderate long-term interest rates. The reported criminal inquiry into Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell is an unprecedented attempt to use prosecutorial attacks to undermine that independence. This is how monetary policy is made in emerging markets with weak institutions, with highly negative consequences for inflation and the functioning of their economies more broadly. It has no place in the United States whose greatest strength is the rule of law, which is at the foundation of our economic success.
Response of investors
What will happen to the dollar, US bond prices, share prices and US inflation, and what will happen to investment, depends on how people respond to the threat to the Fed’s independence. Initially, there was little response from markets, with investors probably concluding that President Trump is unlikely to be able to sway FOMC members. What is more, several Republican lawmakers have begun criticising the Trump administration’s criminal investigation, making it harder for the President to influence Fed decisions.
Even if Powell is replaced, either in the short term or in May, by a chair keen to pursue the Trump agenda, that chair will still be just one of twelve voting members of the FOMC.
Seven are appointed by the President, but serve for staggered 14-year terms. Four have been appointed by President Trump, but the other three were appointed by President Biden, although one – Lisa Cook – is being indicted by the Supreme Court for mortgage fraud, with the hearing scheduled for January 21. She claims that this is a trumped-up charge to provide grounds for removing her from the Fed. If she is removed, President Trump could appoint a replacement minded to cut rates.
The other five members include the President of the New York Fed and four of the eleven other regional Fed Presidents serving in rotation. These four are generally hawkish and would oppose early rate cuts.
Thus it is unlikely that President Trump will succeed in pushing the Fed to lower interest rates earlier than they would have done. For that reason, markets have remained relatively sanguine.
Nevertheless, Donald Trump’s actions could well cause investors to become more worried. Will he try to find other ways to undermine the Fed? Will his actions over Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland and Iran, let alone his policies towards Ukraine and Russia and towards Israel and Gaza, heighten global uncertainty? Will his actions towards Venezuela and his desire to take over Greenland embolden China to attempt to annex Taiwan, and Russia to continue to resist plans to end the war in Ukraine or to make stronger demands?
Such developments could cause investor confidence to wane and for stock markets to fall. Time will tell. I think we need a crystal ball!
Videos
Articles
- Federal prosecutors open criminal investigation into the Fed and Jerome Powell
CNN, Bryan Mena (11/1/26)
- The Fed just gave a rare look at its $2.5 billion renovation — right before Trump’s tour
CNN, Bryan Mena (24/7/25)
- ‘A bone-headed move’: Trump’s shocking battle with Powell could badly backfire
CNN, Matt Egan (12/1/26)
- Why Powell is fighting back against Trump: The US economy is at stake
CNN, Bryan Mena (13/1/26)
- Fed chair Powell hits out at ‘unprecedented’ probe by US justice department
BBC News, Ana Faguy and Osmond Chia (12/1/26)
- Justice department opens investigation into Jerome Powell as Trump ramps up campaign against Federal Reserve
The Guardian, Callum Jones (12/1/26)
- Some Republicans speak out against DoJ investigation into Fed chair
The Guardian, Joseph Gedeon (12/1/26)
- Trump’s attempts to influence Fed risk 1970s-style inflation and global backlash
The Guardian, Richard Partington (12/1/26)
- Statement on the Federal Reserve
Substack, 14 signatories (12/1/26)
- Yellen says Powell probe ‘extremely chilling’ for Fed independence, market should be concerned
CNBC, Jeff Cox (12/1/26)
- Global central bankers unite in defense of Fed Chair Jerome Powell
CNBC, Holly Ellyatt (13/1/26)
- Trump attacks Powell again amid Fed independence fears: ‘That jerk will be gone soon’
CNBC, Kevin Breuninger (13/1/26)
- Former Fed chairs condemn criminal investigation into Jerome Powell
BBC News, Danielle Kaye (12/1/26)
- Fed: Towards a very divided Fed in the coming months and quarters
CPR AM, Bastien Drut (28/11/25)
- Treasury Yields Diverge as Powell Probe Rekindles Fed Independence Risk
Investing.com, Khasay Hashimov (12/1/26)
- Instant View: Investors react as Trump-Fed feud escalates
Reuters (12/1/26)
- Fighting the Fed, Trump tries credit easing by decree
Reuters, Mike Dolan (13/1/26)
- Trump’s attacks on the Federal Reserve risk fuelling US inflation and ending dollar dominance
The Conversation, Emre Tarim (13/1/26)
Questions
- What are the arguments for central bank independence?
- What are the arguments for control of monetary policy by the central government?
- Assess the above arguments.
- Find out what has happened to interest rates, the US stock market and the dollar since this blog was written.
- How do the fiscal decisions by government affect monetary policy?
- Compare the benefits of the dual mandate system of the Fed with those of the single mandate of the Bank of England and ECB.
Every year, world leaders gather to find ways of limiting global warming. The latest of these ‘COP’ meetings, COP30, is in Belém, Brazil from 10 to 20 November 2025. COP stands for ‘Conference of the Parties’, the decision-making body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Perhaps the best-known of these meetings was in Paris in 2015. This resulted in the Paris Agreement. This is a legally-binding international treaty to limit global warming to well below 2°C and preferably to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This would involve reducing greenhouse gas emissions and/or taking carbon absorbing measures. All UN countries except for Iran, Libya and Yemen are signatories to the agreement.
However, on coming to office in January 2025, President Trump announced that the USA will withdraw from the agreement in January 2026. Instead, he would prioritise fossil fuel production, under the mantra, ‘drill, baby, drill’. Previously he had claimed that global warming is a hoax concocted by China designed to undermine the competitive power of the USA.
Progress in reducing emissions and mitigating climate change
Since 2020, each country has been required to submit its own emissions-reduction targets, known as ‘nationally determined contributions’ (NDCs), and the actions it will take to meet them. Every five years each country must submit a new NDC more ambitious than the last. New NDCs are due this year. As of 12 November, 112 of the 197 countries had submitted a new NDC (including the USA, China, the EU and the UK). These 112 countries account for around 71 per cent of global emissions.
Implementing all new NDCs would reduce global CO2 emissions by between 15 and 25 per cent from current levels by 2035. But this would merely reduce global warming to around 2.6°C above pre-industrial levels. Approximately 35 per cent emissions reductions by 2035 would be required to restrict global warming to 2°C and 55 per cent to restrict it to 1.5°C.
But implementing the Paris Agreement has still had a high degree of success. Without the action taken and being taken over the past 10 years, it is predicted that global temperatures by 2050 would rise by 3–3.5°C.
Rich countries are expected to provide finance to low-income countries. This is required to help such countries adopt green technologies and to adapt to the harmful effects of climate change (e.g. through irrigation schemes and flood defences). At COP29 in Azerbaijan, the ‘Baku Finance Goal’ was agreed. This is an agreement to provide climate finance of $1.3 trillion per year by 2035 to developing countries from all public and private sources.
The subsequent ‘Baku to Belém Roadmap’ provides a set of suggested actions for governments, financial institutions and the private sector to bridge the gap between current climate finance flows and the $1.3 trillion agreed to meet global climate goals. The roadmap is a central focus of the COP30 conference in Belém, with discussions between countries on how to translate the Baku finance goal into concrete, tangible actions and integrate it into formal decisions.
The role of Donald Trump
As well as announcing that the USA will withdraw from the Paris Agreement in January 2026, since coming to office in 2025, President Trump has given billions of dollars of tax cuts to fossil fuel firms and allowed drilling for oil and gas on federal lands. At the same time, he has described renewable energy as ‘a joke’ that will bankrupt countries and has slashed subsidies and tax breaks for solar and wind power, withdrawn permits for wind and solar farms, and cut funding for green energy research.
He wants the USA to be world leader in fossil fuel energy, calling on governments to buy US oil and gas, threatening some countries with tariffs if they do not. Already, Japan, South Korea and several European countries have agreed to buy huge quantities of US oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG). A worry is that other similarly inclined governments, such as Argentina, may roll back on their commitments to a green transition and instead boost their fossil fuel industries.
This gives added urgency to the Belém talks. It is crucial for the rest of the world to stick together in pushing ahead to combat global warming and in adopting and sticking to tough NDCs. It is also crucial for rich countries to support dlow-income countries in adopting climate-friendly investment and in measures to mitigate the effects of global warming.
The economics of climate change
Climate change is directly caused by market failures. One of the most important of these is that the atmosphere is a common resource: it is not privately owned; it is a global ‘commons’. Individuals and firms use it at a zero price. If the price of any good or service to the user is zero, there is no incentive to economise on its use. Thus for the emitter there are no private costs of using the atmosphere in this way as a ‘dump’ for their emissions and, in a free market, no incentive to reduce the climate costs.
And yet when firms emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere there are costs to other people. To the extent that they contribute to global warming, part of these costs will be borne by the residents of that country; but a large part will be borne by inhabitants of other countries.
These climate costs are external costs to the firm and are illustrated in the figure. It shows an industry that emits CO2. To keep the analysis simple, assume that it is a perfectly competitive industry with demand and supply given by curves D and S, which are equal to the marginal private benefits (MPB) and marginal private costs (MPC), respectively. There are no externalities on the demand side and hence MPB equals the marginal social cost (MSB). Market equilibrium is at point a, with output at Qpc and price at Ppc. (Click here for a PowerPoint.)
Assume that the emissions create a marginal cost to society equal to MECc. Assume that the MEC increases as output and total emissions increase. The MECc line is thus upward sloping. At the market price of Qpc, these external climate costs are equal to the purple vertical line. When these external climate costs are added to private costs, this gives a marginal social cost given by MSC = MPC + MECc. The gives a socially optimal level of output of the product of Q* at a price of P*, with the optimum point of c.
In other words, other things being equal, the free market overproduces products with climate externalities. If the output is to be reduced to the social optimum of Q*, then the government will need to take measures such as those advocated in the Paris Agreement. These could include imposing taxes on products, such as electricity generated by fossil fuels, or on the emissions themselves. Or green alternatives, such as wind power, could be subsidised.
Alternatively, regulations could be used to cap the production of products creating emissions, or caps on the emissions themselves could be imposed. Emissions permits could be issued or auctioned. Only firms in possession of the permits would be allowed to emit and the permits would cap emissions below free-market levels. These permits could be traded under a cap-and-trade scheme, such as the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme. Again, such schemes are advocated under the Paris Agreement.
COP30 and progress in tackling climate change
The USA is not attending COP30 in Brazil. Nor is the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping. However, there are growing opportunities for translating aims into practical policies for specific sectors, such as energy, transport and carbon-intensive industries. These policies may require some degree of government action – taxes, subsidies or regulation – to internalise climate externalities. But increasingly, green alternatives are becoming economically viable without subsidies or with just initial government funding to ‘crowd in’ private investment, which will then attract further private capital as external economies of scale kick in. Increasingly investors will find profitable opportunities in climate-friendly projects.
At the same time, while the USA is moving away from climate-friendly investment (as least for the term of the Trump Presidency), China is moving in the opposite direction, with massive investment in solar panels, wind turbines, EVs and batteries – investment that is bringing down their cost and thereby encouraging their adoption around the world. Such technologies create huge opportunities for low-income countries to provide affordable energy and to create local jobs, both skilled and unskilled. It also helps them achieve much greater energy security by reducing their reliance on fossil fuel imports
Chinese advances in green technology are also providing a stimulus to other countries to invest in renewable industries to prevent Chinese dominance. The danger, however, of Chinese dominance in the renewable sector in high-income countries is that it may encourage them to impose tariffs on Chinese imports of EVs, solar panels, etc. to protect their own industries.
But despite the growing opportunities for profitable adoption of green technologies without government support, there is still much that governments need to do to encourage the process. COP meetings are an important forum for discussing such policies and holding governments to account for meeting or not meeting their targets.
The agreement
The agreement reached at the end of the conference marked relatively small progress. There was agreement to increase finance from developed to developing countries to help them adapt to climate change. This would triple to $120bn per year, up from the previously agreed doubling, but the target date was pushed back to 2035 from the previously agreed 2030.
By the end of the conference, 122 of the 197 countries had submitted a new NDC – still 75 countries short, although others are expected.
The conference also agreed to establish a ‘just transition mechanism (JTM)’ to ‘enhance international cooperation, technical assistance, capacity-building and knowledge-sharing, and enable equitable, inclusive just transitions’. However, this is voluntary and no funding was attached, but it could act as the basis for future funding.
The biggest failure of the conference was probably the lack of agreement on phasing out of fossil fuels. This is not surprising given the opposition of the major oil producers. The hope is that the reduction in costs of renewable energy will drive the process anyway – a process that China is keen to accelerate with its investment in solar power and other renewable energy. One hopeful development, however, was the pledging of more than $9bn to halt deforestation, a major source of global warming. (See the Travers Smith article at the end of the Articles list below for a very useful summary of the outcome.)
Articles
- What is COP30 and why does it matter for the climate?
Chatham House, Anna Åberg (5/9/25)
- COP30 in Brazil: What is at stake for global collaboration on climate and nature?
World Economic Forum, Pim Valdre (5/11/25)
- What is COP30 and why does it matter?
CNN, Laura Paddison (11/11/25)
- Why COP 30 in Brazil Matters for a Thriving Economy and a Safe, Livable Planet
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS),Rachel Cleetus (7/11/25)
- Nationally Determined Contributions: The Action Plans Behind Global Efforts To Fight the Climate Crisis
Center for American Progress (CAP, Kalina Gibson and Courtney Federico (22/9/25)
- New climate pledges only slightly lower dangerous global warming projections
UN Environment Programme, Press Release (4/11/25)
- COP30: Trump and many leaders are skipping it, so does the summit still have a point?
BBC News, Justin Rowlatt (10/11/25)
- Trump dismisses clean energy as ‘a joke.’ But Americans deserve facts, not fear
USA Today, Mark McNees (23/9/25)
- The surprising countries pulling off stunningly fast clean energy transitions
CNN, Ella Nilsen and Samuel Hart (7/11/25)
Could the world’s biggest polluter be its savior against climate change?CNN, Simone McCarthy (17/11/25)
- COP 2025: Outlook and Implications for Investors
RankiaPro, Joanna Piwko, Allegra Ianiri, Marie Lassegnore and Jean-Philippe Desmartin (10/11/25)
Post-agreement
- Belém: yet another cop out
Zero Hour, Allan Gray (25/11/25)
- Cop30’s watered-down agreements will do little for an ecosystem at tipping point
The Guardian, Fiona Harvey, Jonathan Watts, Damien Gayle and Damian Carrington (22/11/25)
- COP30: Five key takeaways from a deeply divisive climate summit
BBC News, Justin Rowlatt and Matt McGrath, (25/11/25)
- COP30: What were the key outcomes?
Travers Smith (1/12/25)
Information and Data
Questions
- Summarise the Paris Agreement.
- Summarise the Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T.
- What incentives are there for countries to stick to their NCDs?
- Using a diagram similar to that above, illustrate how the free market will produce a sub-optimal amount of solar power because the marginal social benefit exceeds the marginal private benefit. How might the calculation be changing?
- How might game theory be used to analyse possible international decision making at COP conferences? How might this be affected by the attitudes of the Trump administration?
- Is it in America’s interests to cease investing in green energy and green production methods?
On the day he came to office, President Trump signed a series of executive orders. One of these was to set in motion the process of withdrawing from the UN Paris climate agreement. Section 3(a) of the order reads:
The United States Ambassador to the United Nations shall immediately submit formal written notification of the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The Paris Agreement is an international treaty on climate change. It was adopted on 12 December 2015 and came into force on 4 November 2016, 30 days after the point was reached when at least 55 countries accounting for at least 55% of global emissions had ratified the treaty.
Currently, all UN countries are signatories to the agreement and only Iran, Libya and Yemen are yet to ratify it. The agreement commits countries to limiting global warming to well under 2°C above pre-industrial levels and preferably to no more than 1.5°C. This would involve reducing greenhouse gas emissions and/or taking carbon absorbing measures.
Since 2020, each country has been required to submit its own emission-reduction targets, known as ‘nationally determined contributions’ (NDCs), and the actions it will take to meet them. Every five years each country must submit a new NDC more ambitious than the last.
Rich countries are expected to provide finance to low-income countries. This is required to help poor countries adopt green technologies and to adapt to the harmful effects of climate change (e.g. through irrigation schemes and flood defences).
Countries set target dates by which emissions would be fully offset by carbon absorption measures (‘net zero’). The UN’s goal is to reach global net zero by 2050. According to the UN Climate Action site:
As of June 2024, 107 countries, responsible for approximately 82 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, had adopted net-zero pledges either in law, in a policy document such as an national climate action plan or a long-term strategy, or in an announcement by a high-level government official. More than 9000 companies, over 1000 cities, more than 1000 educational institutions, and over 600 financial institutions have joined the Race to Zero, pledging to take rigorous, immediate action to halve global emissions by 2030.
The Paris Agreement has helped to cut emissions or slow their rate of growth in most countries. Although net zero by 2050 may be unlikely, warming will be less than without the agreement.
The USA and the Paris Agreement
In April 2016 the USA signed the Paris Agreement. As stated above, the Paris Agreement came into effect on 4 November 2016.
President Trump came to office for the first time in January 2017. In June 2017, he signed an executive order in which he announced that the USA would withdraw from the agreement, arguing that it undermined the US economy and put it at a competitive disadvantage. He claimed that global warming is a hoax concocted by China designed to undermine the competitive power of the USA.
However, despite Trump’s intention to withdraw from the agreement, its terms did not allow a country to begin a withdrawal procedure for at least three years after the agreement was ratified (i.e. not before 4 November 2019) and then a year’s notice has to be given. This notice was given on 4 November 2019. In the meantime, the USA had to abide by the terms of the treaty. During this period, US representatives at COP meetings used the opportunity to promote fossil fuels. Withdrawal took place on 1 November 2020, just one day after the presidential election and just over two months before the end of Trump’s first term of office.
On 20 January 2021, his first day in office, President Biden signed an executive order to rejoin the agreement, which took place on 19 February 2021. He committed to cutting total greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2030. To achieve this, his administration adopted a number of emissions-reducing measures, for example requiring all new passenger vehicles sold after 2035 to be emissions free, giving tax credits for clean electricity generation, providing federal funds for smart agriculture and setting greener appliance and equipment standards.
But, as we have seen, newly elected President Trump for the second time announced that the USA would withdraw from the Paris agreement and would prioritise fossil fuel production, under the mantra, ‘drill, baby, drill’.
The economics of climate change
Climate change is directly caused by market failures. One of the most important of these is that the atmosphere is a common resource: it is not privately owned; it is a global ‘commons’. Individuals and firms use it at a zero price. If the price of any good or service to the user is zero, there is no incentive to economise on its use. Thus for the emitter there are no private costs of using the atmosphere in this way as a ‘dump’ for their emissions and, in a free market, no incentive to reduce the climate costs.
And yet when firms emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere there are costs to other people. To the extent that they contribute to global warming, part of these costs will be borne by the residents of that country; but a large part will be borne by inhabitants of other countries.
These climate costs are external costs to the firm and are illustrated in the figure. It shows an industry that emits CO2. To keep the analysis simple, assume that it is a perfectly competitive industry with demand and supply given by curves D and S, which are equal to the marginal private benefits (MPB) and marginal private costs (MPC), respectively. There are no externalities on the demand side and hence MPB equals the marginal social cost (MSB). Market equilibrium is at point a, with output at Qpc and price at Ppc. (Click here for a PowerPoint.)
Assume that the emissions create a marginal cost to society equal to MECc. Assume that the MEC increases as output and total emissions increase. The MECc line is thus upward sloping. At the market price of Qpc, these external climate costs are equal to the purple vertical line. When these external climate costs are added to private costs, this gives a marginal social cost given by MSC = MPC + MECc. The gives a socially optimal level of output of the product of Q* at a price of P*, with the optimum point of c.
In other words, other things being equal, the free market overproduces products with climate externalities. If the output is to be reduced to the social optimum of Q*, then the government will need to take measures such as those advocated in the Paris Agreement. These could include imposing taxes on products, such as electricity generated by fossil fuels, or on the emissions themselves. Or green alternatives, such as wind power, could be subsidised.
Alternatively, regulations could be used to cap the production of products creating emissions, or caps on the emissions themselves could be imposed. Emissions permits could be issued or auctioned. Only firms in possession of the permits would be allowed to emit and the permits would cap emissions below free-market levels. These permits could be traded under a cap-and-trade scheme, such as the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme. Again, such schemes are advocated under the Paris Agreement.
Effect of the USA’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and promoting fossil fuels will increase US emissions. Scientific consensus is that this will have a negative effect on climate change. Only part of these climate costs will be borne by the USA, although the severity of recent fires in California, fanned by strong Santa Ana winds, and more violent hurricanes are two examples of costs of climate change to the USA itself.
A bigger worry is whether the USA’s withdrawal will encourage other countries, such as Argentina, to do likewise. Then the climate costs of US withdrawal will be greater.
But all is not bad news. The transition to green energy is well advanced and the costs of solar and wind power are decreasing. Global investment in clean energy has increased by 60% since 2015. China is investing heavily in renewable energy technology, which is giving it a significant trade advantage. The EU has taken significant actions to promote green energy and technology. Similarly, industrial processes that economise on emissions are developing apace and it is becoming increasingly profitable for private companies to make climate-friendly investments without subsidies. In the USA itself, many Democratic states and local governments, and even some Republican ones, will continue to adopt climate-friendly policies.
In this environment, the Trump administration does not want to fall behind in the development of new technologies and markets. And with Elon Musk having a significant influence on Donald Trump, the USA’s investment in EVs and battery technology is likely to continue. This will help to reduce the price of green energy and transport.
Videos
Articles
- Trump vows to leave Paris climate agreement and ‘drill, baby, drill’
BBC News, Matt McGrath (20/1/25)
- What is the Paris climate agreement and why has Trump withdrawn?
BBC News, Esme Stallard and Mark Poynting (21/1/25)
- Six Trump executive orders to watch
BBC News (21/1/25)
- The real message behind Trump’s withdrawal of US from the Paris climate agreement
Sky News, Tom Clarke (21/1/25)
- Trump signs order to withdraw US from Paris climate agreement for second time
The Guardian, Dharna Noor (20/1/25)
- Explained: how Trump’s day one orders reveal a White House for big oi
The Guardian, Oliver Milman and Dharna Noor (22/1/25)
- Donald Trump can’t stop global climate action. If we stick together, it’s the US that will lose out
The Guardian, Bill Hare (6/11/24)
Trump to pull US from Paris climate agreement: What could this mean for the environment?ITV News, Martin Stew (21/1/25)
- 10 reasons why US president-elect Donald Trump can’t derail global climate action
The Conversation, Wesley Morgan and Ben Newell (8/11/24)
- Trump has rejected the Paris agreement again, but game theory shows how other countries can still lead by example
The Conversation, Renaud Foucart (27/1/25)
Information
Questions
- Summarise the Paris Agreement.
- Using a diagram similar to that above, illustrate how the free market will produce a sub-optimal amount of solar power because the marginal social benefit exceeds the marginal private benefit.
- How might game theory be used to analyse possible international decision making in the context of US climate policy?
- Is it in America’s interests to cease investing in green energy and green production methods?
- Go through each of the reasons (not specific to Australia) given in The Conversation article linked above why ‘Donald Trump can’t derail global climate action’. To what extent do you agree with each one?
In an interview with Joe Rogan for his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, just before the US election, Donald Trump stated that, “To me, the most beautiful word – and I’ve said this for the last couple of weeks – in the dictionary today and any is the word ‘tariff’. It’s more beautiful than love; it’s more beautiful than anything. It’s the most beautiful word. This country can become rich with the use, the proper use of tariffs.”
President-elect Trump has stated that he will impose tariffs on imports of 10% or 20%, with 60% and 100% tariffs on imports from China and Mexico, respectively. This protection for US industries, combined with lighter regulation, will, he claims, provide a stimulus to the economy and help create jobs. The revenues will also help to reduce America’s budget deficit.
But it is not that straightforward.
Problems with tariffs for the USA
Imposing tariffs is likely to reduce international trade. But international trade brings net benefits, which are distributed between the participants according to the terms of trade. This is the law of comparative advantage.
In the simple two-country case, the law states that, provided the opportunity costs of producing various goods differ between the two countries, both of them can gain from mutual trade if they specialise in producing (and exporting) those goods that have relatively low opportunity costs compared with the other country. The total production and consumption of the two countries will be higher.
So if the USA has a comparative advantage in various manufactured products and a trading partner has a comparative advantage in tropical food products, such as coffee or bananas, both can gain by specialisation and trade.
If tariffs are imposed and trade is thereby reduced between the USA and its trading partners, there will be a net loss, as production will switch from lower-cost production to higher-cost production. The higher costs of less efficient production in the USA will lead to higher prices for those goods than if they were imported.
At the same time, goods that are still imported will be more expensive as the price will include the tariff. Some of this may be borne by the importer, meaning that only part of the tariff is passed on to the consumer. The incidence of the tariff between consumer and importer will depend on price elasticities of demand and supply. Nevertheless, imports will still be more expensive, allowing the domestically-produced substitutes to rise in price too, albeit probably by not so much. According to work by Kimberly Clausing and Mary E Lovely for the Peterson Institute (see link in Articles below), Trump’s proposals to raise tariffs would cost the typical American household over $2600 a year.
The net effect will be a rise in inflation – at least temporarily. Yet one of Donald Trump’s pledges is to reduce inflation. Higher inflation will, in turn, encourage the Fed to raise interest rates, which will dampen investment and economic growth.
Donald Trump tends to behave transactionally rather than ideologically. He is probably hoping that a rapid introduction of tariffs will then give the USA a strong bargaining position with foreign countries to trade more fairly. He is also hoping that protecting US industries by the use of tariffs, especially when coupled with deregulation, will encourage greater investment and thereby faster growth.
Much will depend on how other countries respond. If they respond by raising tariffs on US exports, any gain to industries from protection from imports will be offset by a loss to exporters.
A trade war, with higher tariffs, will lead to a net loss in global GDP. It is a negative sum game. In such a ‘game’, it is possible for one ‘player’ (country) to gain, but the loss to the other players (countries) will be greater than that gain.
Donald Trump is hoping that by ‘winning’ such a game, the USA could still come out better off. But the gain from higher investment, output and employment in the protected industries would have to outweigh the losses to exporting industries and from higher import prices.
The first Trump administration (2017–21), as part of its ‘America First’ programme, imposed large-scale tariffs on Chinese imports and on steel and aluminium from across the world. There was wide-scale retaliation by other countries with tariffs imposed on a range of US exports. There was a net loss to world income, including US GDP.
Problems with US tariffs for the rest of the world
The imposition of tariffs by the USA will have considerable effects on other countries. The higher the tariffs and the more that countries rely on exports to the USA, the bigger will the effect be. China and Mexico are likely to be the biggest losers as they face the highest tariffs and the USA is a major customer. In 2023, US imports from China were worth $427bn, while US exports to China were worth just $148bn – only 34.6% of the value of imports. The percentage is estimated to be even lower for 2024 at around 32%. In 2023, China’s exports to the USA accounted for 12.6% of its total exports; Mexico’s exports to the USA accounted for 82.7% of its total exports.
It is possible that higher tariffs could be extended beyond China to other Asian countries, such as Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, India and Indonesia. These countries typically run trade surpluses with the USA. Also, many of the products from these countries include Chinese components.
As far as the UK is concerned, the proposed tariffs would cause significant falls in trade. According to research by Nicolò Tamberi at the University of Sussex (see link below in Articles):
The UK’s exports to the world could fall by £22 billion (–2.6%) and imports by £1.4 (–0.16%), with significant variations across sectors. Some sectors, like fishing and petroleum, are particularly hard-hit due to their high sensitivity to tariff changes, while others, such as textiles, benefit from trade diversion as the US shifts demand away from China.
Other badly affected sectors would include mining, pharmaceuticals, finance and insurance, and business services. The overall effect, according to the research, would be to reduce UK output by just under 1%.
Countries are likely to respond to US tariffs by imposing their own tariffs on US imports. World Trade Organization rules permit the use of retaliatory tariffs equivalent to those imposed by the USA. The more aggressive the resulting trade war, the bigger would be the fall in world trade and GDP.
The EU is planning to negotiate with Trump to avoid a trade war, but officials are preparing the details of retaliatory measures should the future Trump administration impose the threatened tariffs. The EU response is likely to be strong.
Articles
- The Most Beautiful Word In The Dictionary: Tariffs
YouTube, Joe Rogan and Donald Trump
- The exact thing that helped Trump win could become a big problem for his presidency
CNN, Matt Egan (7/11/24)
- Trump’s New Trade War With China Is Coming
Newsweek, Micah McCartney (9/11/24)
- Trump tariff threat looms large on several Asian countries – not just China – says Goldman Sachs
CNBC, Lee Ying Shan (11/11/24)
- Trump’s bigger tariff proposals would cost the typical American household over $2,600 a year
Peterson Institute for International Economics, Kimberly Clausing and Mary E Lovely (21/8/24)
- More tariffs, less red tape: what Trump will mean for key global industries
The Guardian, Jasper Jolly, Dan Milmo, Jillian Ambrose and Jack Simpson (7/11/24)
- Trump tariffs would halve UK growth and push up prices, says thinktank
The Guardian, Larry Elliott (6/11/24)
- China is trying to fix its economy – Trump could derail those plans
BBC News, João da Silva (8/11/24)
- Trump tariffs could cost UK £22bn of exports
BBC News, Faisal Islam & Tom Espiner (8/11/24)
- Trump to target EU over UK in trade war as he wants to see ‘successful Brexit’, former staffer claims
Independent, Millie Cooke (11/11/24)
- EU’s trade war nightmare gets real as Trump triumphs
Politico, Camille Gijs (6/11/24)
- Will Trump impose his tariffs? They could reduce the UK’s exports by £22 billion.
Centre for Inclusive Trade Policy, University of Sussex, Nicolò Tamberi (8/11/24)
- Three possible futures for the global economy if Trump brings in new trade tariffs
The Conversation, Agelos Delis and Sami Bensassi (17/12/24)
Questions
- Explain why, according to the law of comparative advantage, all countries can gain from trade.
- In what ways may the imposition of tariffs benefit particular sections of an economy?
- Is it in countries’ interests to retaliate if the USA imposes tariffs on their exports to the USA?
- Why is a trade war a ‘negative sum game’?
- Should the UK align with the EU in resisting President-elect Trump’s trade policy or should it seek independently to make a free-trade deal with the USA? is it possible to do both?
- What should China do in response to US threats to impose tariffs of 60% or more on Chinese imports to the USA?
Over the decades, economies have become increasingly interdependent. This process of globalisation has involved a growth in international trade, the spread of technology, integrated financial markets and international migration.
When the global economy is growing, globalisation spreads the benefits around the world. However, when there are economic problems in one part of the world, this can spread like a contagion to other parts. This was clearly illustrated by the credit crunch of 2007–8. A crisis that started in the sub-prime market in the USA soon snowballed into a worldwide recession. More recently, the impact of Covid-19 on international supply chains has highlighted the dangers of relying on a highly globalised system of production and distribution. And more recently still, the war in Ukraine has shown the dangers of food and fuel dependency, with rapid rises in prices of basic essentials having a disproportionate effect on low-income countries and people on low incomes in richer countries.
Moves towards autarky
So is the answer for countries to become more self-sufficient – to adopt a policy of greater autarky? Several countries have moved in this direction. The USA under President Trump pursued a much more protectionist agenda than his predecessors. The UK, although seeking new post-Brexit trade relationships, has seen a reduction in trade as new barriers with the EU have reduced UK exports and imports as a percentage of GDP. 
According to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s November 2022 Economic and Fiscal Outlook, Brexit will result in the UK’s trade intensity being 15 per cent lower in the long run than if it had remained in the EU.
Many European countries are seeking to achieve greater energy self-sufficiency, both as a means of reducing reliance on Russian oil and gas, but also in pursuit of a green agenda, where a greater proportion of energy is generated from renewables. More generally, countries and companies are considering how to reduce the risks of relying on complex international supply chains.
Limits to the gains from trade
The gains from international trade stem partly from the law of comparative advantage, which states that greater levels of production can be achieved by countries specialising in and exporting those goods that can be produced at a lower opportunity cost and importing those in which they have a comparative disadvantage. Trade can also lead to the transfer of technology and a downward pressure on costs and prices through greater competition.
But trade can increase dependence on unreliable supply sources. For example, at present, some companies are seeking to reduce their reliance on Taiwanese parts, given worries about possible Chinese actions against Taiwan.
Also, governments have been increasingly willing to support domestic industries with various non-tariff barriers to imports, especially since the 2007–8 financial crisis. Such measures include subsidies, favouring domestic firms in awarding government contracts and using regulations to restrict imports. These protectionist measures are often justified in terms of achieving security of supply. The arguments apply particularly starkly in the case of food. In the light of large price increases in the wake of the Ukraine war, many countries are considering how to increase food self-sufficiency, despite it being more costly.
Also, trade in goods involves negative environmental externalities, as freight transport, whether by sea, air or land, involves emissions and can add to global warming. In 2021, shipping emitted over 830m tonnes of CO2, which represents some 3% of world total CO2 emissions. In 2019 (pre-pandemic), the figure was 800m tonnes. The closer geographically the trading partner, the lower these environmental costs are likely to be.
The problems with a globally interdependent world have led to world trade growing more slowly than world GDP in recent years after decades of trade growth considerably outstripping GDP growth. Trade (imports plus exports) as a percentage of GDP peaked at just over 60% in 2008. In 2019 and 2021 it was just over 56%. This is illustrated in the chart (click here for a PowerPoint). Although trade as a percentage of GDP rose slightly from 2020 to 2021 as economies recovered from the pandemic, it is expected to have fallen back again in 2022 and possibly further in 2023.
But despite this reduction in trade as a percentage of GDP, with de-globalisation likely to continue for some time, the world remains much more interdependent than in the more distant past (as the chart shows). Greater autarky may be seen as desirable by many countries as a response to the greater economic and political risks of the current world, but greater autarky is a long way from complete self-sufficiency. The world is likely to remain highly interdependent for the foreseeable future. Reports of the ‘death of globalisation’ are premature!
Podcasts
Articles
Report
Questions
- Explain the law of comparative advantage and demonstrate how trade between two countries can lead to both countries gaining.
- What are the main economic problems arising from globalisation?
- Is the answer to the problems of globalisation to move towards greater autarky?
- Would the expansion/further integration of trading blocs be a means of exploiting the benefits of globalisation while reducing the risks?
- Is the role of the US dollar likely to decline over time and, if so, why?
- Summarise Karl Polanyi’s arguments in The Great Transformation (see the Daniel W. Drezner article linked below). How well do they apply to the current world situation?