Mills reaffirms commitment to foreign trade partners amid tariff uncertainty
Jun. 9—Gov. Janet Mills reaffirmed Maine's commitment to its northern and European neighbors and to preserving the Arctic landscape in the face of climate change at an annual breakfast with business and trade leaders.
Speaking to a crowd of hundreds at the Governor's International Breakfast on Monday, Mills emphasized the interconnectedness of trade and the environment, and she championed the importance of understanding and minimizing the worst effects of climate change.
The theme of Monday's breakfast was "Maine: Gateway to the Arctic and North Atlantic." Speakers, including representatives of shipping logistics company Eimskip and the Maine International Trade Center, discussed Maine's role as a shipping and marine industry hub.
Mills said the actions of other nations working in the Arctic, including Canada and Maine's European trading partners, directly impact "our little state."
"And the actions of our little state affect the Arctic," she said.
Mills paid particular attention to Maine and Canada's "historic friendship and deeply intertwined economies," noting that the state took in billions of dollars' worth of goods last year, including high quantities of fuel and heating oil that rural Mainers rely on.
She highlighted a recent campaign to install signage welcoming Canadians at each of Maine's 13 border crossings. Canadian tourism is anticipated to drop by about a quarter this summer, as Canadians feel increasingly hesitant to visit in light of President Donald Trump's tariffs and threats to make their country the 51st state.
"While we can't fix this economic uncertainty coming from the nation's capital," Maine can show Canadians tourists that they are welcome, Mills said. "It's the least we can do."
Mills followed remarks by Bernadette Jordan, consul general of Canada in Boston, who thanked the governor for her "steadfast friendship."
The Arctic, including Canada's Arctic Archipelago, has been warming four times faster than the rest of the world, Jordan said. Meanwhile, the country's northwest passage could become the most efficient shipping route between Europe and East Asia, which would lead to increased international traffic, she said.
"The threats to our sovereignty are real when it comes to the North," she said, adding that Canada is pursuing intelligence-sharing agreements with other nations that include or do business in arctic territories.
At one point, Mills directed her remarks to a table of visiting students from Edward Little High School in Auburn, urging them to ask questions of their elected officials and to avoid isolationism when they grow old enough to vote. She said Maine has learned improved forest production and fishery techniques from officials and tradespeople in Finland and Iceland, citing these as examples of cross-cultural knowledge sharing that drives innovation at home.
Mills will join a handful of northeastern governors and a half-dozen Canadian premiers in Boston next week to discuss the impacts of tariffs and develop plans for ensuring cross-border trade continues.
Copy the Story Link
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China's electric cars are becoming slicker and cheaper - but is there a deeper cost?
Theo will be responding to reader comments about this article between 12pm and 1pm today. Go to the comments section at the bottom of this page to share what you think about the rise of these more affordable EVs. In China, they call it the Seagull, and it has looks to match. It is sleek and angular, with bright, downward-slanting headlights that have more than a hint of mischievous eyes about them. It is, of course, a car. A very small one, designed as a cheap city runabout – but it could have huge significance. Available in China since 2023, where it has proved extremely popular, it has just been launched in Europe with the name Dolphin Surf (because Europeans apparently aren't as keen on seagulls as Chinese people). When it goes on sale in the UK this week, it's expected to have a price tag of around £18,000. That will still make it, for an electric car on western markets, very cheap indeed. It won't be the outright lowest-priced model on offer: the Dacia Spring, manufactured in Wuhan jointly by Renault and Dongfeng, and the Leapmotor T03, which is being produced by a joint venture between Chinese startup Leapmotor and Stellantis, both cost less. But the Dolphin Surf is the invasive species that has long-established brands most worried. That is because the company behind it has been making ever bigger waves on international markets. BYD is already the biggest player in China. It overtook Tesla in 2024 to become the world's best-selling maker of electric vehicles (EVs), and since entering the European markets two years ago, it has expanded aggressively. "We want to be number one in the British market within 10 years," says Steve Beattie, sales and marketing director for BYD UK. BYD is part of a wider expansion of Chinese companies and brands that some believe could change the face of the global motor industry – and which has already prompted radical action from the US government and the EU. It means once-unknown marques like Nio, Xpeng, Zeekr or Omoda could become every bit as much household names as Ford or Volkswagen. They will join classic brands such as MG, Volvo and Lotus, which have been under Chinese ownership for years. The products on offer already encompass a huge range, from runabouts like the tiny Dolphin Surf to exotic supercars, like the pothole-jumping U9, from BYD's high-end sub-brand Yangwang. "Chinese brands are making massive inroads into the European market," says David Bailey, professor of business and economics at Birmingham Business School. In 2024, 17 million battery and plug-in hybrid cars were sold worldwide, 11 million of those in China. Chinese brands, meanwhile, had 10% of global EV and plug-in hybrid sales outside their home country, according to the consultancy Rho Motion. That figure is only expected to grow. For consumers, it should be good news – leading to more high-quality and affordable electric cars becoming available. But with rivalry between Beijing and western powers showing no sign of subsiding, some experts are concerned Chinese vehicles could represent a security risk from hackers and third parties. And for established players in Europe, it represents a formidable challenge to their historic dominance. "[China has] a huge cost advantage through economies of scale and battery technology. European manufacturers have fallen well behind," warns Mr Bailey. "Unless they wake up very quickly and catch up, they could be wiped out." China's car industry has been developing rapidly since the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001. But that process accelerated rapidly in 2015, when the Communist Party introduced its "Made in China 2025" initiative. The 10-year plan to make the country a leader in several high-tech industries, including EVs, attracted intense criticism from abroad, and particularly the US, amid claims of forced technology transfers and theft of intellectual property – all of which the Chinese government denies. Fuelled by lavish state funding, the plan helped lay the groundwork for the breakneck growth of companies like BYD – originally a maker of batteries for mobile phones – and allowed the Chinese parent companies of MG and Volvo, SAIC and Geely, to become major players in the EV market. "The general standard of Chinese cars is very, very high indeed," says Dan Caesar, chief executive of Electric Vehicles UK. "China has learned extremely quickly how to manufacture cars." Yet competition in China has become ever more cut-throat, with brands jostling for space in an increasingly saturated market. This has led them to hunt for sales elsewhere. While Chinese firms have expanded into East Asia and South America, for years the European market proved a tough nut to crack – that is, until governments here decided to phase out the sale of new petrol and diesel models. The transition to electric cars opened the door to new players. "[Chinese brands] have seen an opportunity to get a bit of a foothold," says Oliver Lowe, UK product manager of Omoda and Jaecoo, two sub brands of the Chinese giant Chery. Low labour costs in China, coupled with government subsidies and a very well-established supply chain, have given Chinese firms advantages, their rivals have claimed. A report from the Swiss bank UBS, published in late 2023, suggested that BYD alone was able to build cars 25% more cheaply than western competitors. Chinese firms deny the playing field is uneven. Xpeng's vice chairman Brian Gu told the BBC at the Paris Motor Show in 2024 that his company is competitive "because we have fought tooth and nail through the most competitive market in the world". Concerns that Chinese EV imports could flood international markets at the expense of established manufacturers reached fever pitch in 2024. In the US, the Alliance for American Manufacturing warned they could prove to be an "extinction-level event" for the US industry, while the European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen suggested that "huge state subsidies" for Chinese firms were distorting the European market. The Biden administration took dramatic action, raising import tariffs on Chinese-made EVs from 25% to 100%, effectively making it pointless to sell them in the US. It was condemned by Beijing as "naked protectionism". Meanwhile, in October 2024, the EU imposed extra tariffs of up to 35.3% on Chinese-made EVs. The UK, however, took no action. Matthias Schmidt, founder of Schmidt Automotive Research, says the EU's tariffs have now made it harder for Chinese firms to gain market share. "The door was wide open in 2024... but the Chinese failed to take their chance. With the tariffs in place, Chinese manufacturers are now unable to push their cost advantage onto European consumers." European manufacturers have been racing to develop their own affordable electric cars. French car-maker Renault is among them. At its factory in Douai, in northeastern France, an army of spark-spitting robots weld sections of steel to form car bodies, while on the main assembly line, automated systems mate together bodyshells, doors, batteries, motors and other parts, before human workers apply the finishing touches. The factory has been making cars for Renault since 1974, but four years ago, the ageing production lines were replaced with new highly automated, digitally-controlled systems. Part of the site was also taken over by the Chinese-owned battery firm AESC, which built its own "gigafactory" next door. It's part of Renault's wider plan to set up an ultra-modern EV "hub" in northern France. Mirroring the lean production techniques of Chinese manufacturers, the hub cuts costs by maximising efficiency and ensuring that suppliers are located as close as possible. "Our target was to be able to produce affordable electric cars here to sell in Europe," explains Pierre Andrieux, director of the Douai plant, arguing that automated processes "will enable us to do that profitably". But the company is also exploiting something the Chinese brands do not have: heritage. Its latest model, the Renault 5 E-tech, built in Douai, borrows its name from one of the company's most famous products. The original Renault 5, launched in 1972, was a quirky little everyman car with boxy looks and low running costs that became a cult classic. The new design, despite being a state-of-the art EV, pays homage to its predecessor in name and appearance, in an effort to emulate its popular appeal. But irrespective of how desirable Chinese cars are in comparison with European rivals, some experts believe we should be wary of them – for security reasons. Most modern vehicles are internet-enabled in some way – to allow satellite navigation, for example – and drivers' phones are often connected to car systems. Pioneered by Tesla, so-called "over-the-air updates" can upgrade a car's software remotely. This has all led to concerns, in some quarters, that cars could be hacked and used to harbour spyware, monitor individuals or even be immobilised at the touch of a keyboard. Earlier this year, a British newspaper reported that military and intelligence chiefs had been ordered not to discuss official business while riding in EVs; it was also alleged that cars with Chinese components had been banned from sensitive military sites. Then in May, a former head of the intelligence service MI6 claimed that Chinese-made technology in a range of products, including cars, could be controlled and programmed remotely. Sir Richard Dearlove warned MPs that there was the potential to "immobilise London". Beijing has always denied all accusations of espionage. A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in London says that the recent allegations are "entirely unfounded and absurd". "China has consistently advocated the secure, open, and rules-based development of global supply chains," the spokesperson told the BBC. "Chinese enterprises operating around the world are required to comply with local laws and regulations. "To date, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that Chinese EVs pose a security threat to the UK or any other country." Joseph Jarnecki, research fellow at defence and security think-tank The Royal United Services Institute, argues that potential risks can be mitigated. "Chinese carmakers exist in this highly competitive market. While they're beholden to Chinese law and that may require compliance with national security agencies, none of them want to damage their ability to grow and to have international exports by being perceived as a security risk," he says. "The Chinese government equally is conscious of the need for economic growth. They're not hell-bent on solely conducting surveillance." Tesla's challenges run deeper than 'toxic' controversy around Elon Musk Xi's real test is not Trump's trade war Trump's chips strategy: The US will struggle to take on Asia But the car industry is just one area in which Chinese technology is becoming increasingly enmeshed in the UK economy. To achieve the government's climate objectives, for instance, "It will be necessary to use Chinese-supplied technology", adds Mr Jarnecki. He believes that regulators of key industries should be given sufficient resources to monitor cyber security and advise companies using Chinese products of any potential issues. As for electric cars powered by Chinese technology, there's no question that they're here to stay. "Even if you have a car that's made in Germany or elsewhere, it probably contains quite a few Chinese components," says Dan Caesar. "The reality is most of us have smartphones and things from China, from the US, from Korea, without really giving it a second thought. So I do think there's some fearmongering going on about what the Chinese are capable of. "I think we have to face the reality that China is going to be a big part of the future." Top image credit: Reuters BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we'll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we'll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We're starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think - you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.
New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
Amid the horrific rise in Jew-hatred, the US Holocaust Museum must reexamine its role
The murders of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim in Washington and the attack on Jewish seniors, including Holocaust survivor Barbara Steinmetz, in Boulder, Colo., remind us that the lessons of the Holocaust remain unlearned. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum can help teach those lessons — if it concentrates on antisemitism as opposed to other hatreds, as it should, and goes beyond the Nazi horror. Advertisement Recall that the Holocaust occurred in European countries where ordinary citizens cooperated or stood indifferent to the mass murders of their neighbors. Today, after decades of proclaiming 'never again,' antisemitism in the US has hit a frightening new peak. The Holocaust Museum is supposed to educate about the dangers of antisemitism. Advertisement But as a proud member of its council, I know first-hand that it needs to do much more to fulfill that important role. The museum's weak connection to the Jewish people stems from its design, created when antisemitism seemed a thing of the past. Since then, it has shifted focus to combatting other forms of hate. The museum also provides no context of Jewish history before 1930 or after 1945. Advertisement And a planned multimillion-dollar renovation of the main exhibit hall could make the museum even more woke and disconnected. Frankly, the operation is in danger of becoming a liberal monument to the dangers of immigration enforcement and conservative politics. What the museum should be doing instead is teaching Americans that antisemitism is the world's oldest hatred, dating back 4,000 years when Nimrod is said to have thrown Abraham into a fiery furnace, and gaining steam with the rise of Christianity. More important, the museum needs to teach the story of Jewish survival; the founding of Israel in 1948, the wars of 1967 and 1973, and the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre. Advertisement It should cover pogroms that spurred the Zionist movement, helping make the case for the existence of a Jewish state. And it should emphasize America's cherished opportunities for Holocaust survivors and their families. Nineteen months after the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust, the museum lacks focus on the ongoing crisis. It reaches thousands of teachers and visitors but teaches broadly about hate, and not enough about antisemitism in particular. It fails, for example, to address antisemitism's recent surge, particularly at US universities. A Harvard-Harris poll in April found 51% of American 18- to 24-year-olds favored Hamas over Israel. Clearly, the museum needs to do a better job of reaching and teaching young people about Israel, Jewish history and current events. Indeed, no metric shows the museum contributing to any reduction in antisemitism. Sadly, all signs suggest it is failing in this regard. Advertisement The good news: President Donald Trump has made combatting antisemitism a priority and has begun cleaning house at the museum. Last month, he removed several Biden appointees, including Ron Klain, Doug Emhoff, Tom Perez, Susan Rice, Jon Finer and Anthony Bernal, none of whom were suited for the council. Rice had politicized Biden's National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism by excluding anti-Zionism and including Islamophobia. Advertisement Finer called members of the Israeli government 'abhorrent,' slamming it at a meeting with Arab American leaders in Dearborn, Mich., last year. Emhoff, appointed just three days before Trump took office, resisted his removal, claiming it 'dishonors the memory of 6 million Jews murdered by Nazis that this museum was created to preserve.' That's nonsense: Replacing these partisan figures has nothing to do with the 6 million murdered Jews, the Holocaust survivors or their descendants. On the other hand, the new council members appointed by President Trump will bring expertise from their careers as well as their skills and their important values. Advertisement Again, the US Holocaust Museum was created to preserve the memory of the Shoah and protect future generations from violent antisemitism. To accomplish this at a time when Jews face their biggest threats in decades requires greater oversight by the council and a broader, bolder outlook that addresses today's emerging problems. It's time to rethink the facility's role and what it is supposed to do to combat antisemitism. Advertisement It's time make the US Holocaust Museum great again. Martin Oliner, a lawyer and the son of Holocaust survivors, was mayor of Lawrence village from 2010 to 2016.
Miami Herald
37 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
DoorDash accused of purposely misleading its customers
DoorDash (DASH) was founded in 2013 by a small group of Stanford students with the idea of helping small businesses with food delivery. Tony Xu, Andy Fang, Stanley Tang, and Evan Moore were so humble when they launched the business, which was originally called Palo Alto Delivery, that they made food deliveries themselves. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter After getting $120,000 in funding from Y Combinator in trade for a 7% stake in the business, the company renamed itself DoorDash in 2013 and started on a road that would eventually lead to enormous success. While DoorDash wasn't the only food delivery business of its type when it launched - Uber Eats was also in the space - it eventually eclipsed it, becoming the largest food delivery provider by 2019. Related: DoorDash tries controversial method to deliver your meal Today, DoorDash holds the largest market share of 67%, compared to Uber Eats' 23%, per Statistica. The company has also expanded outside the food delivery space, offering everything from flowers to beauty products to pet food. Basically, if you can walk into a store and buy it, DoorDash is willing to bring it to you. But now DoorDash is facing new claims that it purposely misleads its customers, which could have a serious effect on its reputation as a company if proven true. The Competition Bureau announced that it filed a lawsuit against DoorDash and its Canadian subsidiary on Monday for a practice it calls "drip pricing." Drip pricing is a pricing technique in which firms advertise only part of a product's price and reveal other charges later as the customer goes through the buying process, per the Federal Trade Commission's description. More Restaurants: Beloved Mexican restaurant closing iconic location after 63 yearsMajor restaurant chain quietly closes several locationsIconic restaurant closing its doors after 32 years The lawsuit alleges that DoorDash misleads its customers by advertising lower prices that are very different by the time the customer makes it to checkout and fees are tacked on. "The company has been engaging in the alleged conduct for close to a decade, acquiring nearly $1 billion in mandatory fees from consumers," the Competition Bureau said in a statement. The lawsuit also alleges that DoorDash makes certain fees appear as if they are taxes, when they are not. Related: Domino's Pizza suffers a startling loss as customers switch gears It also also asks DoorDash to "stop the deceptive price and discount advertising; stop portraying fees as taxes; pay a penalty; and issue restitution to affected consumers who purchased food and other items through DoorDash's platform." DoorDash gave a statement to TheStreet, saying,"Transparency with customers is a top priority at DoorDash. All fees on DoorDash, which support the high-quality operations of our platform, are clearly labeled and disclosed to consumers through the ordering process - including a final review before payment. To be crystal clear, DoorDash does not hide fees from consumers or mislead them in any way." "This application is a misguided and excessive attempt to target one of Canada's leading local commerce platforms. It unfairly singles out DoorDash, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims." Live Nation/Ticketmaster is another business that's been accused of deceptive pricing, leading to public outcry. It's faced multiple allegations of tacking on fees that could drive up the cost of a ticket significantly. Its Dynamic Pricing model also allowed people to resell tickets for dramatically higher prices, which many felt was a way of aiding scalpers. The issue was further spotlighted after complaints around ticketing breakdown for Taylor Swift's Eras tour, and many fans sued the company because of the way the event was handled. The Justice Department sued Ticketmaster in May of 2024, swearing to break up what it called a "monopoly" across the live concert industry. This case is currently ongoing. In the meantime, on May 8, 2025, Ticketmaster announced a new model called All In Pricing that would include all fees (not not taxes). Related: Jim Cramer says these hot new stocks are ones to watch The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
