Tariffs and environmental policy rarely overlap neatly, especially when talking about Trump’s brand of transactional populism, writes Robert P. Antoshak, VP of strategic global sourcing and development at Grey Matter Concepts.

With all the attention focused on Trump’s tariffs these days and the implications for corporate bottom lines, sustainability and environmentalism have been kicked to the curb. For sure, sky-high tariffs can suck the oxygen out of corporate boardrooms, leaving sustainability on the sidelines gasping for air. Yet, harm to the planet continues at an alarming rate.

There’s a surprising amount to unpack from Trump’s tariffs in terms of environmental policy. It turns out that the answer isn’t as simple as yes or no; rather, it’s tangled in a web of competing trade-offs, global supply chains, and the messy realities of international politics.

Consider this: intentionally or not, Trump’s tariffs can have environmental benefits. For instance, tariffs typically make imported goods more expensive, which can encourage local sourcing and shorter supply chains. Fewer goods crisscrossing oceans means fewer carbon emissions from shipping and logistics, potentially reducing pollution. Shorter, more localised supply chains — especially in industries like apparel or steel — often mean greater oversight, stronger regulatory compliance, and less room for environmental abuses.

If tariffs bring manufacturing closer to home, the result could be a cleaner, greener supply chain overall. Moreover, tariffs might give domestic industries financial breathing room, allowing them to invest more seriously in sustainability initiatives. Companies protected from cheaper international competition might be more willing (and able) to innovate, adopting cleaner technologies and less wasteful manufacturing processes. In theory, tariffs could thus become an indirect driver of domestic environmental improvement by shifting incentives away from low-cost, high-impact production abroad.

Unforeseen consequences of tariffs

But that’s not the whole story — not by a long shot. Tariffs are blunt instruments. Trump’s tariffs weren’t crafted with sustainability in mind; they were built to protect domestic industries and address trade imbalances, not environmental stewardship. This disconnect raises serious concerns about unintended environmental consequences.

First and foremost is the problem of shifting production elsewhere, creating “carbon leakage.” The scenario plays out like this: if tariffs make it too costly for companies to source products from traditional trading partners (say, China or Mexico), businesses don’t necessarily start making goods domestically. Instead, they often move production to countries where environmental regulations barely exist. Imagine apparel companies shifting operations from regulated factories in Latin America to cheaper, environmentally problematic factories in Bangladesh or Cambodia. The result? Even higher levels of global environmental harm offset any local gains.

The affordability of sustainable products also suffers under a tariff-heavy regime. As we saw during Trump’s first term, tariffs on solar panels imported from China serve as a cautionary example. Instead of significantly boosting US solar manufacturing, steep tariffs simply made solar energy more expensive in the US, slowing down adoption rates. Rather than accelerating the transition to clean energy, tariffs in this context have actually impeded progress toward environmental goals.

Geopolitics in tatters

Another important piece of the puzzle is geopolitics. Trump’s tariffs sparked significant tension and retaliation from key trading partners around the globe, including close allies. Environmental progress on critical issues like climate change, ocean conservation, and deforestation typically requires international cooperation built on trust and mutual benefit. Trade wars weaken diplomatic goodwill, undermine global partnerships, and distract leaders from environmental collaboration. In short, tariffs that inflame global tensions can end up hurting the environmental cause far beyond economic disruptions.

Take the textile and apparel industry. It’s global, complicated, and often environmentally problematic. Tariffs on imported apparel might initially sound beneficial, as they could boost domestic manufacturing and sustainability investments. But the reality is that these tariffs are just as likely to drive production to the cheapest, least regulated parts of the world. Tariffs alone don’t guarantee cleaner supply chains; they can just as easily promote pollution elsewhere while doing little to reduce overall consumer demand.

What should environmentalists do with Trump’s tariffs?

Given this complexity, should environmentalists lend support to Trump’s tariffs? It depends, frankly, on nuance and context. Tariffs aren’t universally good or bad from an environmental perspective — they’re tools. And like all tools, their outcomes depend entirely on how they’re used.

For genuine environmental benefits, tariffs must be targeted and thoughtfully integrated with explicit sustainability strategies. They should target imports produced by poor environmental practices or countries routinely ignoring environmental commitments. Tariffs must pair with domestic policies incentivising companies toward cleaner innovation. Unfortunately, Trump’s tariffs generally lacked such nuance — they were sweeping, retaliatory measures rather than precise instruments for environmental improvement.

So, environmentalists should neither embrace nor dismiss tariffs out of hand. Instead, they should evaluate them pragmatically. Tariffs that protect environmentally-minded domestic industries and encourage investment in green technology deserve cautious support. Conversely, tariffs that spur environmental damage globally, raise the cost of essential green technologies, or undermine international cooperation warrant opposition.

Messy prospects

Ultimately, Trump’s tariffs don’t neatly align with environmentalist priorities. But neither do they necessarily contradict them entirely. The challenge for environmentalists is not whether to offer blanket support, but how to carefully push trade policy toward outcomes that genuinely serve environmental goals. This means advocating for policies that explicitly link tariffs with sustainability incentives, rather than relying on tariffs as blunt instruments of economic populism alone.

In short, the environmental case for Trump’s tariffs is neither entirely good nor entirely bad. Instead, it’s nuanced, conditional, and requires careful, pragmatic evaluation, precisely the kind of messy answer you’d expect from real-world economic policy debates.

By Just Style