By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump’s threatened 25% tariffs on Canadian exports are facing opposition from industry groups in both countries. These groups argue that the highly integrated energy sectors of the U.S. and Canada would be severely harmed by such tariffs, impacting jobs and economic prosperity. While some U.S. lumber interests support the tariffs, the American Petroleum Institute has specifically requested an exemption for oil and gas. Canada’s heavy reliance on the U.S. market, coupled with regulatory hurdles and lack of pipeline infrastructure, leaves it vulnerable to these trade disputes.
Read the original article here
The energy industry, on both sides of the US border, is vehemently opposing the imposition of tariffs. They argue that the economic consequences are simply too severe, jeopardizing countless jobs and potentially triggering a wider economic downturn.
The fear isn’t just about job losses in the energy sector itself. These tariffs could lead to skyrocketing energy prices for consumers, creating widespread economic hardship and social unrest. This isn’t a hypothetical scenario; the predicted price increases are substantial, enough to potentially spark a significant economic crisis.
This opposition isn’t just lip service; it represents the concerns of a powerful industry. However, the intensity of the reaction suggests that even powerful lobbying efforts are failing to reach the decision-makers. It appears as though there’s a disconnect between the industry’s concerns and the current administration, leaving them feeling unheard and their pleas for reconsideration ignored.
The argument that “Americans might have to pay a little more” fundamentally misunderstands the potential scope of the problem. This isn’t about minor price adjustments; it’s about the potential for a major economic depression, a situation that would affect millions and necessitate drastic community-level preparations for hardship.
Some are already anticipating the worst, outlining plans for community support systems should the worst-case scenario unfold. From establishing neighborhood soup kitchens to encouraging home gardening, communities are proactively preparing for potential food shortages and economic instability. These actions showcase the level of concern and the widespread belief that the tariffs could have devastating consequences.
The opposition from the energy industry also underscores a larger political issue: the seemingly unwavering support for these tariffs, despite their potential to cause widespread harm. This support stems from a combination of factors, including a belief in the power of economic pressure to enforce political goals and a willingness to overlook potential negative consequences.
There’s also a growing sense that this goes beyond simple economic policy. Some believe these actions are part of a larger plan to undermine existing democratic institutions and further a specific political agenda. This narrative frames the tariffs not as an economic policy decision, but rather as a calculated move with far-reaching political implications.
Interestingly, some observers point out the potential irony of the situation. The current administration’s focus on tariffs might ultimately hurt the very people it claims to support. The predicted rise in interest rates, for example, could negatively impact real estate values and other investments. This could leave many supporters economically vulnerable, despite the initial rhetoric of protectionism.
Another intriguing point raised is the potential lack of understanding of basic economic principles behind these decisions. The sheer complexity of global trade and the unintended consequences of tariffs seem to be glossed over in favor of a simplistic and potentially flawed approach. The emphasis seems to be on decisive action, regardless of potential unforeseen ramifications.
The energy industry’s opposition, though significant, has met with limited success in changing course. This resistance highlights a growing concern that powerful lobbies might not be able to influence the current administration’s decisions. The situation suggests a growing disconnect between the concerns of major economic sectors and the political forces currently shaping policy. This presents a significant challenge for the future, suggesting a need for reevaluating how economic policies are developed and implemented.
Ultimately, the energy industry’s pushback is a clear warning sign. It highlights the immense potential for economic instability and widespread hardship. The situation demands a thorough reevaluation of the current policies, acknowledging the potential for significant and far-reaching consequences.