By your tariffs you have reduced world trade. Because world trade is very harmful to the Earth, encouraging us to consume more than we need, I can only hope we all take the hint and reduce our demands even further.
The ecological footprint of the UK is around three whole Earths and that of the USA is around five whole Earths. And most of it is because of our greed for non-essentials and luxuries - the very things you have tafiffed. If we can reduce our demand for non-essentials and reduce our trade-generated waste, then the Earth and humanity, would be in a better place.
For example, with the current system, some car parts cross the US-Canada border eight times - a huge waste of road transport and all the climate change gases that are generated in doing so! Hopefully, that will reduce?
For example, as a Scot, I was always cheering for export of Scotch Whisky and Scottish Salmon - until I realised the immense harm that farming salmon is doing to the ecosystem around Scotland and the harm that Whisky does via drunkenness, sexual infidelity and various diseases. Now that Scottish Salmon and Whisky - both non-essentials - will be more expensive in your country, maybe less will be consumed - and hopefully less Salmon will be farmed, and less damage done.
It is about time that we in the affluent nations of the world recognise that our economies are bloated with non-essentials. Bloating is not healthy.
If it is God Who has got you to do this, then maybe God is sending us all a warning to be less greedy. May we heed the warning before it is too late.
So, thank you Donald, for this good you have done to the Earth. I just hope that politicians all over the world, including you and your team, keep to this.
Andrew Basden
4 April 2025
... For the "thank you to DJT" PDF, I too celebrate the decreasing gross world product (GWP) insofar as it might improve environmental impacts. However, I wonder whether that should ever by celebrated without noting
I suspect that the previously discussed "doughnut economics" could afford us a nice way of conceptualizing the overall benefits & harms of these monumental changes. Are more people, or less, able to live within the doughnut of a. basic needs met b. using only one's "share" of resources
Related: Here's a draft of the sermon I plan to deliver to my congregation on our "creation care Sunday" celebration, 18 May. The theme will be "Looking to God for the water that satisfies." I'm hoping the message provides some food for thought, at least to those who seek to live within Earth's limits. Your feedback would be appreciated, but don't feel pressured, as I can imagine you're quite busy. Thanks in advance for your encouragement & advice thruout the years. ... [AH's draft text]
Many thanks for the draft sermon. Will comment on that separately.
Thank you for this 'but' to the Thank You Donald. Good point. ...
So I ate my breakfast thinking about what you say.
Then it suddenly dawned on me: Is what you say is very like the gun that is held to our heads by all anti-de-growthers?: if you reduce our consumption then the poor will suffer, and we will not have the money to invest in green technologies.
(Or from growth-worshippers: we need growth to feed the poor and to clean up the mess we are making; look at the way extreme poverty has reduced in last 50 years all over the world because of economic growth (a thing I heard on the radio this very morning).)
So, I will, in the following, write some thoughts about that. To contribute to continuing discussion and thinking:
If what they say is true, then there is utterly no hope for the Earth. (I assume that your 'but' is not something you ardently believe but you are just pointing out the 'but' that might come up.)
What do you think is the answer to that?
To me, we can no longer dodge that question. We need a set of robust answers to these growth-worshippers.
You suggest Doughnut Economics. I do like it. But one problem with Doughnut Economics: it presupposes the ecological ceiling is above the social floor. Is that really true, or, rather, can it be made effective?
If the affluent nations of the world, adopted Doughnut Economics, would they presuppose s social floor above the ecological ceiling? Will not our current lifestyles (with 3-Earth and 5-Earth ecological footprints for Northern Europe and the USA) influence how we - the influencers in the world's thinking - shape how we define the social floor? I understand that Kate Raworth and her team define the social floor in global terms - but would people in democratic affluent cultures accept that version of social floor? I doubt it.
I sense that, though DE might be a useful signpost to follow for a time, it is nothing more than a signpost and the real solution lies beyond.
I have some ideas about that, based on
Do you have any ideas?
Thank you for opening up this issue.
AndrewB 7 April 2025
Part of Discussions.
Created: 4 April 2025, two days after Donald Trump imposed tariffs on goods entering the USA. Last updated: 5 April 2025 a bit more. 6 April 2025 border-crossing. 7 April 2025 AH's response; link to poverty.