Australia lifts trade barriers on US beef
US President Donald Trump singled out Australia as he unveiled his 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April, accusing the close ally of banning American meat while cashing in on exports to the United States.
Australia's stringent biosecurity rules block imports of cattle slaughtered in the United States, but born in Canada or Mexico.
Threatened with 10 per cent tariffs on beef shipped to the United States, one of its largest red meat markets, Australia has now dropped these barriers.
Agriculture minister Julie Collins said the United States had adopted new quality controls that soothed Australia's worries.
'The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is satisfied the strengthened control measures put in place by the US effectively manage biosecurity risks,' she said in a statement.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
'Australia stands for open and fair trade - our cattle industry has significantly benefited from this.'
Australia suspended US beef imports in 2003 after an outbreak of mad cow disease, a fatal and infectious condition that slowly eats away at the nervous system of cattle.
Most of these restrictions were lifted in 2019, although some barriers remained on cattle slaughtered in American abattoirs but born elsewhere.
Trump said Australians were 'wonderful people' but accused them of banning US beef while exporting billions of dollars worth of meat to America.
'They don't take any of our beef,' he complained in April.
'Won't let us'
US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick - one of the architects behind the US tariff blitz - had also namechecked Australia.
'Our farmers are blocked from selling almost anywhere. Europe won't let us sell beef, Australia won't let us sell beef,' Lutnick said earlier this year.
Almost five per cent of all the beef eaten in America is Australian, and that largely goes into burgers.
In the first three weeks of July, Australia shipped almost 25,000 tonnes of beef and veal to the United States, official figures show.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has been unusually frank in his condemnation of Trump's trade war against allies and foes alike.
'This is not the act of a friend,' Albanese said in April after the first wave of tariff announcements.
'These tariffs are not unexpected, but let me be clear, they are totally unwarranted,' he said.
'This will have consequences for how Australians see this relationship.' AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
3 minutes ago
- Business Times
Opec+ agrees in principle another large oil output hike: sources
OPEC+ agreed in principle to boost oil output by 548,000 barrels per day (bpd) in September, two Opec+ sources said on Sunday (Aug 3), as the group finishes unwinding its biggest tranche of production cuts amid fears of further supply disruptions from Russia. A decision is expected at a meeting scheduled to begin at 11 am GMT, amid fresh US demands for India to stop buying Russian oil as Washington seeks ways to push Moscow for a peace deal with Ukraine. Fresh European Union sanctions have also pushed Indian state refiners to suspend Russian oil purchases. Opec+, which consists of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) and its allies, pumps about half of the world's oil. It has been curtailing production for several years to support the market. But it reversed course this year to regain market share, and as US President Donald Trump demanded Opec pump more oil. Opec+ began output increases in April with a modest hike of 138,000 bpd, followed by larger hikes of 411,000 bpd in May, June and July and 548,000 bpd in August. If the group agrees to the 548,000 bpd September increase, it will have fully unwound its previous production cut of 2.2 million bpd, while allowing the United Arab Emirates to raise output by 300,000 bpd. Opec+ still has in place a separate, voluntary cut of about 1.65 million bpd from eight members and a two million bpd cut across all members, which expire at the end of 2026. Sources have said previously the group had no plans to discuss other tranches of cuts on Sunday. REUTERS
Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Straits Times
How Trump-vetted scientists are trying to shred the climate consensus
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Climate experts say it will hobble the country's efforts to rein in rising temperatures. NEW YORK – A new report from the US Department of Energy says projections of future global warming are exaggerated, while benefits from higher levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) such as more productive farms are overlooked. It concludes, at odds with the scientific mainstream, that policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions risk doing more harm than good. Released on July 28, the report is part of an effort by the Trump administration to try to end the US government's authority to regulate greenhouse gases. It's the output of scientists known for contradicting the consensus embodied in volumes of research by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose work is approved by virtually every nation. Publishing an alternate approach to the science of global warming on the same day that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it plans to revoke the endangerment finding – a determination that greenhouse gases harm public health and welfare – marks a step up in the administration's war on regulations. Since its adoption in 2009, the endangerment finding has become the bedrock of many US environmental rules. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said repealing the finding would 'end US$1 trillion or more in hidden taxes on American businesses and families.' Climate experts say it will hobble the country's efforts to rein in rising temperatures and lessen the impacts, such as more intense storms, droughts and wildfires. The federal government's own research shows climate-fuelled extreme weather is already causing US$150 billion (S$193.2 billion) in losses a year in the US. In its proposed rule to nix the finding, the EPA references the Energy Department's report more than two dozen times. Energy Secretary Chris Wright wrote in the report's foreword that he had commissioned it and selected the authors to form a working group. The agency's support for the contrarian research stands in contrast to the broad rollback of other climate work under President Donald Trump. Since his inauguration in January 2025, hundreds of scientists have been dismissed from agencies , including some who had focused on climate change. The EPA recently moved to shutter its main scientific research arm, which has been a crucial tool for policymaking. The US cancelled a landmark climate change report , the sixth National Climate Assessment, and has taken down numerous webpages on climate science. Some of those were related to previous National Climate Assessments – studies that hundreds of researchers spent years painstakingly compiling. The new report's authors include Steven Koonin, a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution who wrote a 2021 booking arguing that climate science is 'unsettled'; Roy Spencer, a University of Alabama in Huntsville scientist and senior fellow at the climate-denying group Cornwall Alliance; and Judith Curry, a climatologist formerly of Georgia Tech who testified to a Senate committee in 2023 that climate change has been mischaracterised as a crisis. An Energy Department spokesman said the report's authors 'represent diverse viewpoints and political backgrounds and are all well-respected and highly credentialed individuals.' The spokesman added that the report 'was reviewed internally by a group of DOE scientific researchers and policy experts from the Office of Science and National Labs,' and that there will be a 30-day comment period for the public to weigh in. Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, said the report presents a series of arguments the administration can draw on to contend 'public health and welfare is not endangered by emissions that come from the auto sector, from the trucking sector, from the electricity sector.' Rather than denying climate change is occurring, Prof Carlson said, 'What they're trying to say instead is, 'Well, it's not so bad. It's really expensive to mitigate. And that expense actually harms people more than anything we could do' to slow it down. That's in keeping with past comments by members of Trump's cabinet that have downplayed global warming or public concern about it. Prof Carlson said the report is 'a wholesale assault' on climate science and previous policy. Zeke Hausfather, the climate lead at Stripe Inc and a research scientist at nonprofit Berkeley Earth, has contributed to major US and international climate reports. He described the Energy Department publication as 'scattershot' and said it 'would not pass muster in any traditional scientific peer review process'. That the administration released it after taking down webpages hosting 'the actual, congressionally mandated National Climate Assessments,' he said, is 'a farce'. The report is a 'package of punches' against the scientific consensus that previously grounded US climate policy, and against that policy itself, said Jennifer Jacquet, a professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami. 'It's really surreal to think that's where we are in 2025.' The EPA will have to go through the lengthy federal rulemaking process to try to abolish the endangerment finding. If the proposed rule is finalised, legal challenges are inevitable. The issue could end up before the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2007's Massachusetts v EPA that greenhouse gases were pollutants the EPA could regulate under the Clean Air Act. Getting the court, which now has a conservative supermajority, to overturn the 2007 decision may be the endgame, said Prof Carlson. The effort would be risky but could succeed, she said. 'I think on every front, the arguments that the [EPA] administrator is going to make – based on the DOE report – are extremely weak,' said Prof Carlson. 'But we also have a court that's very hostile to environmental regulation.' BLOOMBERG
AsiaOne
4 hours ago
- AsiaOne
Trump orders nuclear submarines moved after Russian 'provocative statements', World News
WASHINGTON — US President Donald Trump on Friday (Aug 1) said he had ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned in "the appropriate regions" in response to remarks from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev about the risk of war between the nuclear-armed adversaries. Security analysts called Trump's move a rhetorical escalation with Moscow, but not necessarily a military one, given that the United States already has nuclear-powered submarines that are deployed and capable of striking Russia. Medvedev on Thursday said Trump should remember that Moscow possessed Soviet-era nuclear strike capabilities of last resort, after Trump had told Medvedev to "watch his words". "Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev ... I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that," Trump said in Friday's social media post. He added: "Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances." Asked later by reporters why he ordered the submarine movement, Trump said: "A threat was made by a former president of Russia, and we're going to protect our people." The US Navy and the Pentagon declined to comment about Trump's remarks or on whether submarines had been moved. It is extremely rare for the US military to discuss the deployment and location of US submarines given their sensitive mission in nuclear deterrence. Trump's comments came at a time of mounting tension between Washington and Moscow as Trump grows frustrated with what he sees as President Vladimir Putin's failure to negotiate an end to his more than three-year-old invasion of Ukraine. He did not specify what he meant by "nuclear submarines". US military submarines are nuclear-powered and can be armed with nuclear-tipped missiles, although not all are. But any talk by a US president about potential nuclear military capabilities raises concerns, the security experts said, noting that the United States has historically refrained from matching Russia's nuclear-saber rattling given the risks surrounding the world's most devastating weaponry. "This is irresponsible and inadvisable," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association advocacy group. "No leader or deputy leader should be threatening nuclear war, let alone in a juvenile manner on social media." Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists noted that US nuclear submarines — part of the so-called nuclear triad with bombers and land-based missiles — were always positioned to launch nuclear-armed missiles at targets in Russia. "The subs are always there all the time and don't need to be moved into position," he said. "He grants Medvedev a response to these crazy statements." The United States has a total of 14 Ohio Class nuclear-powered submarines, each capable of carrying up to 24 Trident II D5 ballistic missiles that can deliver multiple thermonuclear warheads up to 4,600 miles. Between eight and 10 Ohio Class submarines are deployed at any one time, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative arms control group. [[nid:720369]] 'Commitment trap' Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, has emerged as one of the Kremlin's most outspoken anti-Western hawks since Russia sent tens of thousands of troops into Ukraine in 2022. Kremlin critics deride him as an irresponsible loose cannon, though some Western diplomats say his statements illustrate the thinking in senior Kremlin policy-making circles. US officials had told Reuters prior to Trump's latest remarks that Medvedev's comments were not being taken as a serious threat, and it is unclear what drove Trump's latest announcement beyond the public clash between the two on social media. Trump and Medvedev have traded taunts in recent days after Trump on Tuesday said Russia had "10 days from today" to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine or be hit with tariffs. Kristensen said that Trump was creating a "commitment trap" by fuelling expectations that he could resort to nuclear weapons if tensions escalated further with Russia. Still, Evelyn Farkas, executive director of the McCain Institute and a former senior Pentagon official, played down the idea that this could lead to nuclear conflict. "It's really signalling. It's not the beginning of some nuclear confrontation and nobody reads it as such. And I would imagine the Russians don't either," she said. She added that Trump's actions, however, were unlikely to get Russia to change course in Ukraine. Moscow, which has set out its own terms for peace in Ukraine, has given no indication that it will comply with Trump's 10-day deadline of Aug 8. Putin said on Friday that Moscow hoped for more peace talks but that the momentum of the war was in its favour. He made no reference to the deadline. Trump, who in the past touted good relations with Putin, has expressed mounting frustration with the Russian leader, accusing him of "bullshit" and describing Russia's latest attacks on Ukraine as disgusting. ALSO READ: Putin, facing Trump deadline, signals no change in Russia's stance on Ukraine
