New U. S. President Donald Trump’s promise to impose maximum energy costs, while he can no longer guarantee that costs won’t rise, has explained much of his presidential crusade and his 2024 policy. In the 1980s, Trump championed protectionism as an economic and political tool, threatening to block or allow the mobility of capital to shape foreign relations and domestic economic policy.

In the energy field, Trump linked this to the “Drill Bathrough Drill. ” The argument is that if the United States produces more energy, superior materials will lead to less expensive energy, making American exports, electrical or otherwise, more competitive globally, and economic sector gains would offset the environmental degradation. This policy would also most likely mitigate tariff retaliation from energy-exporting countries affected by US tariffs.

America’s partners have almost uniformly expressed outrage and horror at the proposition. Meanwhile, China, the adversary to be compelled by American tariffs, has not reacted in the way Trump or his acolytes hope. Chinese oil producers and traders, solar panel manufacturers, light industry conglomerates, and countless others in or adjacent to the energy sector are optimistic about American tariffs. They consistently argue in Chinese media that America’s tariffs will ultimately isolate America from its allies, weaken American exports in third-party countries, and help China build up its domestic aggregate demand.

The underlying rationale for any tariff is that it disincentivizes domestic firms from purchasing foreign inputs by imposing a fee, making domestic partners more competitive. This fee is paid by any actor considering overseas purchases, not by foreign companies as many erroneously or disingenuously argue or believe.

Energy tariffs have added layers of complexity. Sometimes they straddle the line between the development of general economic plans and industrial policy. Since energy is an input to existing economic activity, any tariff has an immediate effect on the entire economy. This makes them resistant but less accurate tools. Energy price lists can simply revive or ruin entire industries, curb unwanted foreign economic activity, and radically adjust environmental outcomes. This is done not only by applying rates, but also by configuring how they are paid: flat rates, usage over time, rates based on screens or time of day, etc. There are dozens of tactics to set this up.

In China’s economy, where, despite economic liberalization, the state still occupies the commanding heights of the economy, China’s National Development and Reform Commission sets prices at artificially low rates. NDRC guidelines are then carried out on the provincial level by local government and Chinese Communist Party officials. While this does make exports competitive, it also creates bureaucratic inefficiencies, a tremendous burden on public finances, and inhibits domestic consumer consumption. Past attempts at reform didn’t go well. In 2021, subsidies for manufacturers using domestic renewable energy were ended, and prices were liberalized. The resulting economic turmoil helped cause energy shortages and made the government to freeze further planned reforms, waiting three more years before unrolling the most timid of reforms at a glacial pace.

High-tech exports constitute an important component of China’s economy.

China’s rapid, export-driven progress has helped lift many millions of people out of extreme poverty. But it also creates an economic paradox for China if it needs to emerge from the ranks of middle-income countries. To export, China will have to keep its currency weak while keeping power and hard work prices low so its products remain competitive.

When Chinese President Xi Jinping took power in 2012, he sought to put strength at the center of his policies. The emblematic systems that marked his mandate highlight this preference and the limits of this strategy. China’s Belt and Road Initiative has sought to change the force infrastructure structure to reshape the industry and mitigate excessive domestic spending while advancing foreign policy objectives. But so far, the BRI has spent too much money and failed to replace industry as much as it preferred.

The “Made in China 2025” plan, which focuses on high-tech, high-value-added exports, has been more successful. China is now a world leader in many areas of power. China refines about 90% of the world’s minerals used in green energy, exports a quarter of the world’s EVs and EVs, and has more solar panels for use and export than the rest of the world combined.

These export and production successes have not saved China’s long-suffering economy or generated customer spending to combat deflation. In fact, without the U. S. price lists, China’s generous subsidies would probably have been a bridge too far. Fortunately for Xi, U. S. price lists are accidentally set up to help China.

At a basic level, Xi needs to escape the middle-income trap by forcing China’s customers’ goods exports to diversify and lose their primacy at the center of the Chinese economy, ultimately ending up in the hands of Chinese customers. They would be replaced by domestic income, while exports in high-value, high-tech strategic sectors would occupy a middle ground. This was made transparent in the 13th and 14th Five Year Plans, which also identified that such reform would be distressing.

Any suffering that the CCP’s policies may have imposed on the Chinese people can now be credibly attributed to the United States. Moreover, a general easing of global capital mobility would further alleviate China’s suffering. Sectors of the economy that the CCP does not prioritize will be affected, with little threat to macroeconomic ambitions. If China does not take the first step, Chinese corporations will be constrained by genuine market forces rather than bulky and useless state mandates to genuinely Xi’s vision.

Right now, many inputs going to American corporations do not have non-Chinese equivalents, meaning they will have to bear the prices and pass them on to consumers. In the medium and long term, US price lists, through their design, will reduce Chinese exports to the United States and most likely increase US production capacity. However, those gains are unlikely to offset losses resulting from tariff retaliation and reduce competitiveness in the Global South.

It is worth considering what alternatives can address valid concerns over Chinese labor, environmental, and intellectual property rights policy, which have hurt countless Americans. Across party lines, energy industry experts will disagree over the exact solution to strengthening American energy independence and job growth. However, there are promising initiatives, such as the bipartisan Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. Whatever the optimum solution, it probably isn’t the one your adversary welcomes. American energy tariffs aren’t piling weight on an encumbered Chinese economy; they’re simply handing it the weight it would pick up anyway.

A community. Many voices.   Create a free account to share your thoughts.  

Our network aims to connect other people through open and thoughtful conversations. We need our readers to share their perspectives and exchange ideas and facts in one space.

To do this, please comply with the posting regulations in our site’s terms of use.   We summarize some of those key regulations below. In short, civilized.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

User accounts will be blocked if we become aware that users are participating in:

So, how can you be a user?

Thank you for reading our Community Guidelines. Read the full list of publishing regulations discovered in our site’s terms of use.