291: Tariffs, Trump, and Al Gore on the Future of Democracy: What on earth is happening?

Full Transcript

Tom: [00:00:00] Okay. Hello? And. Oh, sorry. There's a countdown. How official. Hello, and welcome to Outrage and Optimism. I'm Tom Rivett-Carnac.

Christiana: [00:00:10] I'm still Christiana Figueres.

Paul: [00:00:12] And I'm still Paul Dickinson.

Tom: [00:00:14] This week we discussed the tariffs that Trump announced last week, what the impact of them will be on our ability to deal with the climate crisis. We'll also touch on Greenland and the potential annexation. And we bring you Christina's in-person event with Laurence Tobias and Al Gore. Thanks for being here.

Christiana: [00:00:31] Wait, did you say the potential annexation, Tom? Yeah. Okay. I'm not sure. But anyway, let's carry on.

Tom: [00:00:40] How about just. And all the narrative around Greenland?

Paul: [00:00:45] There's nothing funnier than watching YouTube trying to self-censor. I mean, good luck. Good luck. It's going to last about a minute at best. Try not to mention the enormous flying saucer that landed in Hyde Park. I know the aliens are walking around, but try not to make a big thing about it. Make it a story about spring daffodils. Creatures from another world. And, you know, just sort of weave them together.

Tom: [00:01:07] Okay, so we are recording this on Monday the 7th of April, and we're beginning the podcast. You'd like everyone else in the world with a question about what the hell is going on. We've seen. This is the third day of precipitous stock market dips in one of the world's greatest acts of economic self-harm that we've ever seen, as it's now being dubbed Orange Monday. I don't know if any of you, either of you, have seen that hashtag with this drop paralleled only by Covid, Black Monday and some of the other, you know, outbreaks of world wars and things. But this one was entirely created.

Paul: [00:01:39] By the pandemic.

Christiana: [00:01:41] I mean, to our credit, we can still laugh because otherwise we'll cry.

Tom: [00:01:45] I mean, if we stop laughing, we're really screwed. So I think that's what we have to do. I mean, it's not to discount the effect this is having on everybody, but we would really encourage everyone to laugh. So there is a lot of analysis out there about what happened last week. Trump, of course, had this bizarre sort of show in the Rose garden where he got out what appeared to be like a sort of big board with betting odds, where he announced the new tariffs that were going to be placed on friend and foe alike, exempting only a few countries like North Korea and Russia from the tariffs that he then announced. And the markets have basically been in freefall ever since. As everyone tries to work out what this means, is it serious? Is it going to be implemented? Are there bilateral agreements that are possible? And no doubt all listeners are tracking all of this. We're not going to try and contribute to that debate. There's enough out there already. But we do want to ask the question, what does this mean for our issue? Because of course, alongside all this madness, the planet is still warming up and we're still heading in a direction of a completely compromised future. So let's try and tackle that issue to add some value to our listeners who are no doubt paying attention to the economics in other spheres, which, if you would like to kick off, what the hell is going on here and what does it mean for our climate?

Paul: [00:02:54] I'm loving the nervous laughter here. It's like you've got this. You've got this. Awkward.

Christiana: [00:02:58] I'm loving the fact that you think that there's an answer to that question.

Tom: [00:03:01] We've got 12 minutes. Let's go.

Paul: [00:03:04] Paul, I can go first. I want to draw attention to that. Everyone's talking about the tariffs, and I just don't think this is about the tariffs at all okay. I don't think that's the point. The point is and this wonderful lawsuit has been brought by a stationery company in Florida against the tariffs against China. It's a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief. And we'll put a link in the show notes. And it's backed actually by the new Civil Liberties Alliance, which is a law firm that fights for federal overreach, a conservative NGO, if you will. And what they point out is that by invoking emergency powers to impose an across the board tariff on imports from China, the statute doesn't authorize president Trump has misused that power and usurped Congress's right to control tariffs and upset the constitutional separation. This lawsuit says the president purportedly ordered these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

Tom: [00:04:02] So he's declaring an emergency to give him the power to do that, right?

Paul: [00:04:05] That's the way every country in the world, in every country, in every country, country. Well, I mean, and no other president has used an emergency declaration to enact tariffs. And the IEA itself says nothing about tariffs. So I think the story here is the president has sought to become the biggest global news story in the world and crash all stock markets without any authorization to do that, misusing an emergency provision and bypassing the Congress. And the important point here is the demonstration effect of essentially the assertion of rule over what was previously the three parts of the US government. You know, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. They've all been usurped at the most massive scale. And of course, the genius of Trump is we're all talking about the tariffs, and we're not talking about the absurd way that they've been implemented.

Christiana: [00:04:54] Well, so so what that brings up in me is how do we want to talk about this? Because we could take it as a serious thing and say, okay, what what is this? What is the departure from, let's call it globalization toward a sudden demolition of global free trade scaffolding that we had built over several decades with the purpose of lowering prices, increasing efficiency, access, increasing consumptions, increasing consumption. I mean, that that was the whole purpose, right? Yeah. And then the return to what we can call protectionism, but it will be called something else without any measures or intent to address any of the weaknesses of the so-called globalization. Yeah. So are we really addressing the weaknesses of globalization? Is that really what we are doing? Because if we think about what were the weaknesses or what are definitely economic inequality. First number one, yeah, very, very true job displacement, exploitation of labor, environmental degradation. But we're not really instituting any measures to affect any of that. It's basically a process of insula rising. Is that a word in English? I'm not sure.

Paul: [00:06:15] It's a good word. It should be a word. Yeah. Time. Christiana has created a word.

Christiana: [00:06:19] Okay. Insula rising the United States and just whipping out this whiplash of terrors on a total whim, on a total whim, on a formulaic approach. I mean, the press has reported what the formula is.

Paul: [00:06:32] They worked it out. They said, wait a minute. They've taken half the half the trade imbalance and turned it into a percentage

Tom: [00:06:39] Well, I mean, to your question, Christiana, around how we should talk about this, it's a very good question. I think despite the shaky legislative ground that this is resting on, I think for the purpose of this conversation, Let's assume that this is just going to be enacted, and that there will now be these large trade barriers in place between the US and other trading partners. We're likely to see a reaction from those other countries. We're already seeing one from China. We know the EU is preparing a response. There will be a mixture of different responses that will put up different trade barriers. And as Treasury Ministry officials in the UK said, it's the end of globalization. As Keir Starmer said, the world as we know it is over. Of course, Trump is more than capable of reversing all of this tomorrow. But if he doesn't, if he doesn't, let's think for a minute around what the impact of that will be on climate. Reduced international cooperation, increased costs for the solutions to climate change, and tragically, a dramatic lowering of economic activity. Now there are those. And I've been messaging my friends in the environmental community on the more radical end, perhaps, than you and I, asking, what do they think about this? And some of them say, well, this is great. This is going to stop economic activity. And that will mean that emissions will go down because people won't be doing so much. But of course, as we know, and I think I probably speak for both of you when I say this, you cannot stop climate change or nature destruction by just halting economic activity because people become desperate. The effects of that are very negative. It's completely immoral, but also it doesn't solve the problem. So to what degree can we put our arms around this? And of course, we're dealing with so many uncertainties and half truths. It's difficult to be very specific. But if these measures do continue and they're implemented, what will that do to our collective attempt to deal with the climate crisis?

Christiana: [00:08:28] It seems to me there are at least two different components of this. One is what is the social contract that we're all operating within? And obviously this single handed demolition of the free trade agreements around the world presents a very different paradigm of working, which is everybody on their own. Everybody against everybody else. So we're definitely moving very, very dramatically away from something that has been built over decades, which is increased collaboration, increased solidarity, increased efficiency across different countries. All of that is basically down the drain, at least as far as the United States is concerned. So the question is, how does the rest of the world react to the fact that the United States has taken a big, big, big pair of scissors and basically cut itself out of the map of the world, right? Does the rest of the world say, okay, goodbye, United States, you're going down the drain. But we will continue in a collaborative manner.

Tom: [00:09:40] And can you even do that with the major player, the reserve dollar, the major consumer stepping out?

Christiana: [00:09:46] Well, exactly. So that's the first piece. And then the other piece that I think we should talk about is. So then now what happens to the progress of technologies? Because we all know that China has been taking such a leadership role in the technologies that address climate change. Will China continue to do that? Can they do that in the face of these tariffs? Where would they sell? Do they have to open up new markets? Who is going to be able to buy from China. How do you recast this. Or does this mean that China all of a sudden has even more possibilities to strengthen their Belt and Road initiative? That were being somewhat curtailed? Are they going to actually take over the rest of the world with Belt and Road? I mean, honestly, it is too early to know which way things are going to go, but they're not that many different possibilities out there.

Paul: [00:10:41] I mean, just I want to offer something on the case for working people who've been betrayed by globalization. It's kind of true that lots of US manufacturing failed when it suddenly found itself faced with this incredible low cost labor from China. But to your point, Christiana, that should, in a kind of enlightened democracy, have been addressed by government, you know, putting resources into retraining people, stimulating the new businesses. You know, the idea is that the sort of lower value manual work is done somewhere else by people on lower wages, and you move up the value chain. It is the fact that literally millions of workers in the US were just abandoned by their own country, is where a lot of the ill will towards globalization comes from. And so it's kind of understandable.

Tom: [00:11:26] But just just to that point, Paul, I mean, just to come back on that, I mean, I agree with you on that, but that's solving the problems of the 60s and 70s, right? At the latest.

Christiana: [00:11:34] Exactly.

Tom: [00:11:35] And what you have now is US manufacturing, and this is, I think, underlines your point. Us manufacturing is actually a record high at the moment. And the degree to which some of the bottom end has gone out offshore from the US. That's true. But the other issue that's affecting, of course, is automation. So if the tariffs were to change the location of manufacturing and it came back to the US, it would just be automated.

Paul: [00:11:56] You know that's a problem in China as well. Automation is taking jobs in China. So there are major issues. You know the world is perhaps overdue now for serious discussion of citizens income, because we just cannot keep making people unemployed through technology and expect enough coffee shops to open. Humanity can can sort of pay its salaries.

Christiana: [00:12:14] I totally agree that the real issue that we never really address with globalization is economic inequality, right? Absolutely true. But to Tom's point, tariffs are the wrong answer to the right problem. We agree on the problem is just that. That is not the answer. The answer is not to go back to where we were decades ago. The answer and honestly, I just think this is a what is the word that I want, pendejo? Somebody who has absolutely no courage

Paul: [00:12:44] It's the right word. It's the wrong language question.

Christiana: [00:12:46] But what? What is the word when someone has no courage?

Paul: [00:12:49] Cowardice?

Christiana: [00:12:50] Yeah. Thank you. So I just think this is a coward response to the challenge that we have, because a more courageous response would be not to go back decades ago, but rather to say, okay, how do we evolve forward? Not how do we fall back? Yeah. How do we evolve forward? How do we build and what we have and really address the problems rather than use, as I said, the wrong answer for the right problem.

Tom: [00:13:16] And I mean, I agree with you on the cowardice, but it's also really cruel.

Christiana: [00:13:21] Yes.

Tom: [00:13:22] Very cruel. So take one example. And people have been laughing about the fact that Lesotho is now going to have this 67% income tariff placed on it. That's to do with diamond exports. Of course, the Lesotho people don't buy a lot from the US because they're a developing country and they don't. There's not necessarily much produced in the US that they would want to have. Now there's this massive tariff on their imports into the US, but they also can't fall back on development funding because USAID has been destroyed, together with development funding from the UK. And now this crash in the stock market is going to substantially affect all the foundations that also support those countries. So these three things happening in the space of 2 or 3 weeks, it's created a completely different world for us to live in. But in terms of vulnerable people, I don't think we've really quite understood, look at the impacts of these tariffs around the world, just how much real human suffering at the most desperate end of humanity we're going to see in the next year.

Christiana: [00:14:17] Absolutely. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. I mean, yes, it's about diamonds in Lesotho, but it's also about denim material. Yeah. Tom DeSoto is one of the, you know, major countries outside of of China and India producing denim material to export to the United States. And there are thousands of jobs that depend on that denim being produced in Lesotho and exported to the United States. What does the United States, where do they think they're going to get their jeans from? Right. If China can't export, if they can't, if Lesotho can wear the jeans going to come from.

Paul: [00:14:51] I'm not going to worry about the cowboys right now. I mean, one one stat I do want to pick up on. I mean, there are these individual disasters for certain countries. But Richard Sharma, the chair of Rockefeller International, pointed out in the Ft that actually, the share of global trade that the US represents is only 15%. So 85% of global trade carries on as before, and you are going to see serious concentrations excluding the US. I hope and believe that countries will be able to concentrate their trade more tightly outside of the US.

Christiana: [00:15:22] But Paul. Sorry, sorry, sorry. In principle, I agree with that in principle. But let's look at the reality. If thousands of people lose their jobs in any industry the diamond, the denim, the the sugar, whatever. And they lose their job. Companies go broke. Then you can't really very easily reconstruct that and say, okay, now we're going to sell to another country. It's not that easy to reconstruct trade routes.

Paul: [00:15:52] Trust me. And I agree with you. I wanted to just quote Anatoly, you know, the chief executive of Cop 30. She said last week in the FTT. The trade war is a really big concern because some countries have technology for decarbonization that other countries need. So for a climate change, this is a big disaster. Don't get me wrong, I'm not underestimating this. And let me quote the executive of a very big renewables company in the US, EDP Sandhya Ganapathy. She said whether it's transformers or whether it's circuit breakers, a lot of them are coming from overseas, Canada and Mexico or other parts of the world. And the imposition of tariffs not just impacts new projects that we want to put in the ground. It impacts grid stability. The fact we have to keep pace with increasing energy demand. You know, it's really tough for US business. But I think we have to recognize, you know, you sow the seed and you reap the whirlwind. The US is you know, if these tariffs go ahead is sort of beginning to exit the global economic system. And so we will have to find these other markets. And you can see a tightening. And the big victor I think is going to be China.

Tom: [00:16:49] I agree with you on that. And that goes back to Christina's point earlier. I think actually China will consolidate their leadership in many ways on renewable energy and clean technology. They'll export it to the EU. They'll support it other parts of the world. Of course, the last thing that Trump wants, right, ostensibly, is to strengthen the Chinese economic position and dominance in emerging industries. But that's exactly what's going to happen with these tariffs.

Paul: [00:17:09] So you do think you know what Trump wants because I don't think Trump knows what Trump wants personally.

Tom: [00:17:13] Well it's a good question. Obviously I don't know. I think one of the things he wants is to damage China. Of course, there's other things he wants to do. I think what will happen in the US is nothing. No one will make investments because how can they over just a few years, they'll just sort of stall and kind of go sideways and hope that things change back, or that others can sort of lobby the president to change things. But it's it's heartbreaking. And I would point out. I love the idea that we can pivot to a world where all of the 85% of trade outside the US continues to happen and grow and focus on clean technologies. But the destabilizing impact of this on the world. The analysis I've read that alarmed me the most is trade wars can very quickly turn into real wars if people start really suffering. I mean, this is playing really playing with fire, given the unstable nature of our world already.

Paul: [00:17:58] Doubtless true, doubtless true. And to your point about cowardice, Christiane, I was listening to actually Michael Lewis, the brilliant writer who's a great student of Trump, particularly in Trump. One wrote a great book called The Fifth Risk, which is an extraordinary book if you ever want to understand. You know, the first Trump administration was kind of, you know, he didn't expect to win. The second Trump administration is kind of the rather than the dog that caught the car. It's now the dog trying to drive the car. But there was a question about why people lack cowardice. And, you know, the point Mike Lewis made is that Trump is hostile to trust itself. He sees it as trust, as threatening. And the particularly terrifying thing is this idea of anticipatory obedience, the attacks on the law firms, the attacks on the universities. And of course, business is just completely turtles, you know, arms, feet and and head inside the shell. Everybody is just feeling more and more afraid to say anything. This crazy stuff is happening in the news.

Tom: [00:18:48] I mean, on that. And I can see when I come in, Christiana, I would say that that is true in some ways, but I would also just applaud those US businesses. And there are many of them who are holding the course on climate change and are continuing with their commitments, who are not dialing back. And actually, I think we're seeing quite a lot of courage bubble up from the US corporate sector. Of those who are, maybe they're not trumping the horn as much as they maybe did before, but they're not stopping either.

Christiana: [00:19:11] But thank you for for bringing us back here, because this conversation really has to focus on what is the impact of the craziness on climate progress around the world, not just in the United States, around the world. What I take from this conversation, Tom and Paul, is, number one that we're really working against the whole spirit of collaboration that is necessary to deal with a global issue that is just from a, let's say, from just from a conceptual paradigm point of view, but also that if this shakeup means that we're going to have to rewire, reconstruct the scaffolding, the trade scaffolding, in order to re-establish roots of all of the supply chains that are necessary to produce the technologies that address climate change. It's going to take a while to do that. You don't do that overnight. And so at minimum, this is going to delay progress, because we're probably not going to be able to see the production of wind turbines, of solar panels, of batteries just coming off the factories the way that they were in an exponential fashion just last year. This is going to seriously Delay production. And yes, we may be able, in the best of all cases, to rewire the entire system and be able to proceed with the technologies that are so superior without the United States in the best of all cases. But that's going to take a while. And as we know, one of the major, major factors of climate success is timing.

Tom: [00:20:50] Yeah.

Christiana: [00:20:51] Reducing emissions three years from now has a much more humble effect than reducing emissions now.

Tom: [00:20:59] Well, I think that probably I mean, there's going to be a lot more to say on this. And as we say, we're still living through the kind of car crash that's happening with the international market. So I know we don't have enormous amounts of time to talk about it. Should we leave this one here? I think the other thing listeners will know on this podcast, we do our very best not to only talk about Trump or outrage or optimism, because it'd be very easy to get drawn into this sort of, you know, thing that just sucks or bends light towards it in most media coverage. But I did want to just take.

Paul: [00:21:27] Ben's light towards it. That's a black hole. Well, that's a black hole.

Tom: [00:21:30] Exactly. It's a black hole. That's what. Trump is Ben's light and all matter. Go towards it and you can't focus on it.

Paul: [00:21:35] And time slows down. I can sense all of these things happening to me.

Christiana: [00:21:38] Okay. Before. Before we leave this, can I please read my totally favorite quote that I found about this tariff?

Paul: [00:21:43] Go for it. Yes.

Christiana: [00:21:44] Okay. Quote. It is perfectly normal in an integrated global economy for a bilateral trade deficit to exist. A little introspection helps you have a bilateral trade deficit with your grocery store, but a bilateral trade surplus with your employer. Why would you put a tariff on your local grocery store?

Tom: [00:22:12] That is fantastic. Where did that come from?

Christiana: [00:22:16] So that quote is an article by Rebecca Schneider in Time magazine. And Ben will put the link to the article in the show. Notes. But, I mean, it just really brings it on point, doesn't it?

Paul: [00:22:32] You might kind of expect the largest economy in the world to be running trade deficits with the smaller economies. I mean, like you just probably little kids in primary school work that one out.

Tom:[00:22:42] Oh my God. Okay. Thank you Christiana. That's amazing. Now, should we talk for a few minutes while we go to the break about Greenland? Because that's the other big thing that's happened over the course of the last couple of weeks. Obviously, there is a long history, actually, of the US trying to take over. Greenland stretches back before the Second World War. But just recently, J.D. Vance was in northern Greenland for a few hours in a US base.

Clip of JD Vance : [00:23:03] Our message to Denmark is very simple. You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland. What we think is going to happen is that the Greenlanders are going to choose, through self-determination, to become independent of Denmark, and then we're going to have conversations with the people of Greenland from there.

Tom: [00:23:20] Talked extensively and coherently Inherently about the fact that the US wanted to annex Greenland and thought that it would happen. And Trump keeps talking about this, too. Now, of course, China controls over 80% of critical minerals around the world, but Greenland actually has 25 of the 34 minerals deemed critical by the European Commission for the future of our economy. And what's more, the US Geological Survey estimates that Greenland would give the US access to 17.5 billion barrels of offshore crude oil and over 4,000,000,000,000m³ of natural gas. And actually, in an independent study, the Ft values those potential oil fields at between 3 and $400 billion. Some of the media coverage about this has speculated that this proves that Trump actually understands that climate change is happening, and that the Greenland ice sheet is now melting and will reveal a country underneath that will provide more resources. What do you both think about that theory? What do you think something else is going on?

Paul: [00:24:21] I'm happy to say I think it's pure theater.

Christiana: [00:24:23] Yeah, I think so too. I totally agree, it's it's pure theater because if they were really interested in those minerals, then they would have a very different economic policy at home and they wouldn't have scrapped the IRA. Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera. I mean, so so that doesn't doesn't make sense if it is for military defense purposes. I really wonder what has suddenly changed now in this century to make Greenland and and furthermore, Panama. Let's not forget about Panama. Why are they so strategic that the US is willing to pay the cost of antagonizing most nations of the world around? Just talking about the way that they are talking about Greenland and Panama? And honestly, here's my question. I really wonder what the Pentagon actually thinks about this.

Paul: [00:25:15] It's funny, Christiane, you talked about the cost of antagonizing most nations. I just wrote that down. I think they see it as a benefit and not a cost, I think. You know, if I think of J.D. Vance, last trip to Europe, antagonizing most nations was kind of the specific outcome he was seeking from his speech at the Munich Security Conference, and he achieved that.

Christiana: [00:25:33] Well, you're right, it is so far from my brain that I didn't realize. But yes, you're right.

Paul: [00:25:39] I mean, the other thing I mean, there is this thing about the sea routes. You know, the ice has melted, although we're not allowed to talk about climate change. So at the same time as all these references to climate change are disappearing from U.S. government websites, the fact that ships can now get down the other side of Greenland may have some kind of military implications. I don't really know. The story behind the trip is hysterical, though, because his wife, the second lady, was going to watch a dog sled race in a rather sort of provocative fashion, but they couldn't find anyone in all of Greenland to meet her. Even a souvenir shops refused to to host her, so they ended up flying. Think about this. A US government plane flew from Washington, D.C. up to a base in northern Greenland. J.d. Vance got out with some journalists, said some things, then got back in the plane and through the back. I mean, you could have done it on the telephone. I mean, I don't know what they were doing in Greenland.

Tom: [00:26:23] Pure theater, as you say.

Paul: [00:26:24] But it's probably it's probably to do with, you know, whilst they were in Greenland. The CIA put chips in all of our necks or something. You know, it's a distraction.

Tom: [00:26:34] You heard it here first. Yeah. The Dickenson theory. All right. Okay. I think that's quite good to put that to bed. And this whole theory that actually they're there because they understand climate change and they're playing three dimensional chess, which they'd like us all to believe. I think that often the simpler theory is right.

Paul: [00:26:48] By the way, I heard worst ever story about what the Trump administration really up to. It's all planning for climate change. They know that they're going to run out of food, so they take over Canada. And as it gets warmer, they can move the whole population north. And this is what secret fossil fuel planning. On the one hand denying climate change and on the other hand, knowing full well that we're going to four degrees and preparing the US population for its inability to sort of live in the inhospitable south of the country. End of bonkers conspiracy theory.

Christiana: [00:27:16] Okay, Dickinson, I have heard conspiracy, but this is advanced conspiracy.

Paul: [00:27:21] Yeah, I'm sure it's rubbish because they're not that clever. But anyway.

Tom: [00:27:25] Exactly. I've seen nothing in governments to suggest that level of competence that actually moving entire hundreds of millions of people further north. But anyway. Right. Okay, so we will be back in a minute with Christina's conversation on stage in Paris with al Gore and Lawrence Bibiana. See you in a second. Welcome back. So, Christiana. Last week you were in Paris and you took part in a conversation with al Gore and Lawrence Tobin, both former guests on this podcast. It's a brilliant conversation. We're going to drop it in an extended clip here for about 15 minutes. But just before we go to that, what we'd like to say to the listeners about what they're about to hear.

Christiana: [00:28:03] Well, just to contextualize it. Al Gore has been, as most listeners perhaps know, doing these extensive, intensive climate trainings around the world for years, for almost 20 years, perhaps. And he continues to do these. Around the world. And this one, he chose to start this year of his Climate Reality Project trainings in Paris, because it is the 10th anniversary of Paris. So this was his training for 800 people. He started off with his proverbial slide deck that gets updated every single time. And then he very kindly invited Laurence to bianna and myself to join him for a conversation. And I asked him, what is the link between democracy and climate change as seen through the lens of the United States? Because, as we know, Paul has already put that theory into the podcast conversation.