Latest news with #Nafta
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
This scenic beach used to be filled with families. Now it's deluged with Mexican sewage
Imperial Beach, California, is a city with a dirty secret. There's a reason why nobody, beyond a determined bunch of early-morning surfers, ventures beyond its sandy beaches and into the sea. It's the same reason local restaurants source their fish from further up the coast, and residents keep their windows shut at night, even during the sweltering West Coast summers. The city, a short drive south of San Diego, is being polluted by billions of gallons of raw sewage flowing across the Mexican border every year. Its beaches have been forced to close, its air is being contaminated by pollutants hundreds of times above levels deemed safe, and locals are falling violently unwell. The issue is now a source of tension between the US and Mexico, and The Telegraph understands that Donald Trump has given a personal commitment to tackle it as the two countries attempt to negotiate a solution. When The Telegraph visited earlier this year, Tom Csanadi, a retired paediatrician, was looking out at the view from his home on the beachfront. To the north he could see the curve of the coastline as it arcs towards San Diego, and directly in front of him the blue of the Pacific Ocean, with an old wooden pier stretching a quarter-mile out to sea. Rising up on a hillside to the south, beyond the border wall, is the Mexican city of Tijuana, which even at a distance of a few miles seems to dwarf Imperial Beach. 'S--- flows downhill,' Dr Csanadi said. 'And we're downhill.' Tijuana is one of Mexico's fastest-growing cities, exploding in size since the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) came into force in the mid-1990s. But its development was too fast for the antiquated and neglected sewage systems on either side of a border, which were overwhelmed by the demands of a population that now numbers more than 2.3 million and is climbing ever higher. Instead, up to 80 million gallons of its waste is flooding into the Pacific Ocean and the cross-border Tijuana River every day. The river used to disappear during the dry months, from around June to September. But these days it is kept flowing by a cocktail of raw sewage and industrial chemicals, bearing viruses, bacteria and parasites into the US. Imperial Beach is bearing the brunt of it, and has become what some locals refer to as 'Mexico's toilet'. Dr Csanadi and his wife, Marvel Harrison, thought they had staked out their own share of paradise when they bought an undeveloped plot on the beachfront 10 years ago. Over time, it became a family home for them and their children – along with a pet chicken roaming outdoors called Daphne – and at the back of their minds, they thought they would be there for the rest of their lives. They don't think that any more. In the years since moving in, Dr Harrison, a psychologist, has developed a condition similar to asthma that has left her with a chronic cough and means she has to use an inhaler. There are some days when she can't walk on the beach because of the strain it puts on her lungs. 'We're a small town with a global problem,' she said, taking sips from a large mug of tea in her kitchen between barely-suppressed coughs. As for Dr Csanadi, he has developed an E coli infection that is resistant to antibiotics and regularly comes down with sinus issues. Accounts of chronic illness are common throughout Imperial Beach, where residents report cases of migraines, respiratory conditions, stomach problems, fatigue, skin infections and nausea. Authorities say hundreds of Navy Seals, training at the base a short distance up the coast, have developed gastrointestinal issues from contact with contaminated ocean water. The dead animals that regularly wash up shows the wildlife isn't immune either. A group of bottlenose dolphins found on a beach one summer were killed by sepsis caused by bacteria transmitted via urine or faeces, researchers at State Diego State University found. Most of Imperial Beach's population stays out of the sea, where access has been restricted for around three years. Warning signs instructing swimmers to stay away are planted in the sand every 20 feet or so. But people are falling ill anyway because the pollution is spreading through the air from the churn of the diseased river and crashing waves of the Pacific. Every night, somewhere between midnight and 2am, the city is enveloped by a strong smell. It can happen during the day as well, albeit less commonly, leaving locals prisoners in their own homes. Nobody can quite agree what the odour is: some compare it to rotten eggs, while others say it has a bitter chemical pang. To TJ Jackson, who lives along the beachfront, it simply 'smells like Tijuana'. The stench is the result of hydrogen sulphide emanating from the Tijuana River, according to Benjamin Rico, a PhD student studying the pollution at the University of California San Diego. Typically, hydrogen sulphide levels are below one part per billion (ppb), and California has set a safe limit for children and pregnant women at 7.3ppb. But Mr Rico shared research with The Telegraph showing hydrogen sulphide levels taken from one neighbourhood in Imperial Beach reached up to 4,500ppb. And it is just one of potentially thousands of pollutants being given off by the river, and spread over the rest of the county. At one pollution hotspot on Saturn Boulevard identified by Mr Rico, the sulphur smell is overpowering. Water pours out of a concrete pipe into an estuary, churning untreated sewage, chemicals and metals. Many of the nearby trees, their branches dipping low towards the water, are withered and black. The area was deserted, with the exception of a young boy who cycled past with a T-shirt clamped over his mouth and nose. Paloma Aguirre, the mayor of Imperial Beach, hit out at the response from Gavin Newsom, the California governor. 'He has not done enough,' she said. 'And it borderlines on gross negligence that he is actively refusing to help us, despite the overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that we are really being harmed here. 'He hasn't done more than send a letter to [former US president Joe] Biden asking for more funding.' But so far, locals are quietly optimistic about Lee Zeldin, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who visited Imperial Beach in April and declared the sewage crisis was 'top of mind' for Mr Trump. Mr Trump's administration submitted its plan to Mexico earlier this month, and the two governments are in the midst of thrashing out a deal that is expected to be concluded within weeks to upgrade sewage treatment facilities. 'We're literally going line by line on past agreements, and pressure testing everything to see what can be completed faster,' a US government source said. 'If it says five years, could it be done in two years? Could it be done in 100 days?' To date, Mexico is said not to have rejected any of Washington's proposals, and negotiations have been spurred along by both Mr Trump and Claudia Sheinbaum, the Mexican president, who are 'committed to solving this problem'. But the move comes too late for some Imperial Beach residents who have packed up and moved away, worn down by what they feel is years' worth of neglect from the government. Among their number is Serge Dedina, Ms Aguirre's predecessor as mayor, who suffered sinus, ear and stomach infections and whose son required urgent care when he fell violently ill after swimming in the sewage-infested waters. Ms Aguirre, however, plans to stick around and see what happens next to Imperial Beach. 'I can't leave – I'm the mayor,' she said. 'I go down with the ship. That's my responsibility.' The Mexican government and the office for Gavin Newsom were contacted for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
South China Morning Post
12-05-2025
- Automotive
- South China Morning Post
How Trump's erratic tariffs could crash his US car production goals
Many Americans who came of age in the 1980s will remember when Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys became the preferred family vehicles, quietly replacing US models. When quality, reliability and price were factored in, patriotism was the only remaining reason to keep an American-made car on the driveway. Two high-school friends and I each got well-worn hand-me-down cars when we started commuting to college. Dave got a Ford Fairmont estate car, which he called 'the hearse'. Gary got a Buick Skylark that he dubbed 'Uncle Charlie', a term used to describe the kind of relative who gets inebriated at Thanksgiving dinner. I had a Chevrolet Monte Carlo, which I simply referred to as 'the monstrosity'. With the money we made from part-time retail jobs, we all bought Honda Civics when our American gas guzzlers died. But within a decade, American car companies finally got a break. With the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) – renegotiated into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) during the first Trump administration – they got a more robust regional supply chain and a nearly continent-wide market. By reducing tariffs on vehicles and parts, the agreement helped US carmakers go head-to-head with their Japanese competitors on metrics other than patriotism. Seeing the benefits of Nafta and USMCA, more carmakers from Japan, South Korea and even Europe did what US President Donald Trump wants all the world's manufacturers to do now – manufacture in the US or expand production where they have already set up factories. Nearly all the major carmakers from these countries became American manufacturers, bringing efficiencies that those born and bred in Detroit, Michigan, have once again struggled to match. Ford, General Motors and Stellantis sold around 5.4 million cars and light trucks in the US last year, down from the more than 12 million cars they sold in 1999, according to a University of Michigan economic report.
Express Tribune
11-05-2025
- Business
- Express Tribune
When goods don't cross borders, soldiers do!
Listen to article In the ongoing escalated environment between India and Pakistan, the talk of free trade across borders can be termed unrealistic, anti-nationalist or even unpatriotic. In this article, I will argue that trade openness, trade connectivity and trade facilitation can serve as a deterrence against war, conflict and violence. Openness comes with no or low tariffs; connectivity requires reliable physical infrastructure and facilitation demands simplification and efficiency of transactions. India and Pakistan are part of a region, which is the least connected in the world. Before Trump's tariffs, Nafta intra-trade was 55% of their total trade. Asean member countries' intra-trade was 27% of their total trade. In comparison, intra-Saarc trade is 5% and intra-ECO trade is less than 1%. Pakistan's trade with its border countries, excluding China, is 4% and with China included it is 20%. In other words, 80% of our trade takes place with countries which are not located in this region. India's trade patterns are also similar but more diverse; since its top export destinations are the US, the Netherlands and China. The formal Indo-Pak trade reached $2.4 billion in 2014, declined significantly after 2018 and now it is less than $300 million. Our trade with Afghanistan is now recovering after registering a significant decline, which is a good sign, but it remains subject to the sustainability of peace. We now have a barter trade arrangement with Iran, though it is hardly utilised. In recent years, instead of more trade, this region has witnessed air strikes, missile exchanges, terrorism and border incursions. This is the Bastiat prophecy: when goods don't cross borders, soldiers (and terrorists) will. Now, we have seen that it has already happened. This is the logical outcome of mutual mistrust in these countries, which has only grown. This has also led to an increase in smuggling across borders, particularly through Iran and Afghanistan. Closure of formal trade between Pakistan and India has diverted trade to the UAE, which has become a major partner for both countries. Practically, this serves as a conduit of bilateral trade, at increasing costs for our firms and consumers. We need several policy adjustments on the domestic front to adapt to a free trade region. Pakistan's tariff policy is structured on the cascading principle, which implies that unprocessed or semi-processed goods should face a lower tariff rate than finished goods. This may sound supportive for developing the local industry, however, the cascading tariff as a trade policy leads to the resource allocation diverted to the domestic markets rather than competing in the export market. It also reduces consumer welfare. Pakistan's tariff policy 2019-24 has maintained this principle, which has continued to suppress the export potential in lieu of revenue gains from customs tariffs at least in the short run. A uniform tariff rate which does not differentiate between the nature and use of goods is the hypothetical opposite to the cascading effect. In the long run, we must change the current policy of cascading and pre-announce a single, uniform rate of 10% on all imports. In addition, the commitment to a market-based exchange rate, import relaxations, abolition of taxes on exports and withdrawal of additional customs duties and withholding taxes at the import level are necessary. These domestic reforms will prepare Pakistan to better integrate with the region and beyond. Creation of supply chains will become possible, which will also compel firms from these countries to create partnerships. Strong regional and trade connectivity can act as insurance against war, conflict and poverty. India and Pakistan together share the burden of 27% of the world's poor. One out of every four poor inhabitants of the planet lives here. Chinese investment in Pakistan through CPEC can be leveraged as a tool for enhancing regional connectivity. While all regional countries must cooperate, Pakistan should take the initiative, as dictated by our geography. If Pakistan takes the first step, China can leverage its regional and global influence to help restore normal business relationships across borders in this region. Pakistan has the right to self-defence and it is the primary responsibility of the armed forces to guarantee territorial integrity of the country on all fronts. Once the current tensions de-escalate, Pakistan should give a message to all neighbours to start conversation for free movement of people and goods across the region. In an environment where the US has already increased its tariffs on all countries by applying a 10% base tariff, it will also create opportunities for regions which are better connected. These developments in global trade policy should also push us to consider adopting a different strategy by prioritising our economic interests. Economic transactions should not wait till complete normalisation. We should continue to hold our positions according to the international law while also engaging in talks for peaceful co-existence. The writer is the Executive Director of PRIME, an independent economic policy think tank
The Guardian
15-04-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Trump's tariffs are reckless – but they hold a key lesson for Democrats
To tariff or not to tariff? Today's tweet-length political discourse pretends this is a binary choice. Donald Trump has pitched across-the-board import levies as a panacea to rebuild American manufacturing, while Democrats insist the president's proposals are an attempt to crash the economy, and that their party should tout its opposition to all tariffs. But neither the policy nor politics of this moment are that neat and simple. While too few or too many tariffs can destroy economies, there is a Goldilocks zone that's just right. It's just being omitted from the conversation. Policy-wise, Trump's tariff-all-imports initiative lands on the 'too many' side, ignoring some basic economic realities. In offering almost no implementation period, it provides industry no grace period to actually re-shore factories and other capital-intensive operations to produce goods in the US. In applying tariffs across the board rather than in a targeted fashion, Trump's proposal makes few accommodations for commodities – from coffee and vanilla to various rare earth minerals that America cannot produce at scale within its own borders. Trump's approach is more a power grab than a trade policy – one forcing his erratic decisions on America without the consent of Congress. The strategy allows him to reprise his practice of preserving levies that hit political opponents while granting lucrative exemptions to reward big donors and powerful industries. The likely result: unnecessarily higher prices, industry-crippling retaliation, an uncertain policy environment that paralyzes investment, ever-more rampant corruption and few enduring benefits for the domestic macroeconomy. That said, liberals' suggestion that Trump's behavior proves all tariffs are bad and the existing tariff-free trade policy is ideal – well, lived reality belies those arguments, too. The North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) and the reduction of tariffs on China during the 1990s and 2000s removed a financial disincentive for companies to cut costs and boost their profits by shifting production to countries that allow workers to be exploited and the environment to be despoiled. Unsurprisingly, since the trade deals passed, the United States has lost more than 70,000 manufacturing facilities and millions of factory jobs – an economic apocalypse that coincided with an unprecedented increase in suicides, drug overdoses and other 'deaths of despair.' For much of the working class, wage and job losses were not offset by the financial benefits of cheaper imported goods. While wealthy 'Davos Men' of the 1990s and 2000s touted the 'creative destruction' of tariff-free international commerce, legions of displaced American workers weren't afforded the robust support system (healthcare, retraining, pensions, etc) other trade-exposed countries provide. Here in the US, resources were instead spent on wars, bank bailouts and tax cuts for the rich. Meanwhile, as pandemic shortages most recently illustrated, America's anti-tariff frenzy diminished our capacity to make necessities we shouldn't depend on other countries for. Scoffing at such concerns, Hawaii's Democratic senator Brian Schatz recently insisted: 'It should not be a goal of our national economic policymakers that we make our own socks.' His since-deleted tweet was a glib, anti-Trump broadside against tariffs only a few years after Schatz touted his own party's use of tariffs to re-shore American jobs. Similarly, some liberal pundits have mocked the idea that America should even try to rebuild some of its manufacturing capacity. These glib brush-offs distract from security, sovereignty and self-sufficiency problems that come with the United States now relying on other nations for everything from medical supplies and medicine to military and energy equipment to the computer chips that power the economy. Bubbling beneath liberals' free-trade dogma is the snobby insinuation that nobody in America actually wants to work in factories – a notion egged on by Chinese AI videos. But polling cited by media, libertarians and Democratic TV influencers as alleged proof of this hypothesis actually illustrates the opposite: not only do the vast majority of Americans believe it is important for the country to rebuild its manufacturing capacity, a whopping one-fourth of the country's workers believe they would be better off if they were able to change jobs to go work in manufacturing. Republicans looking to own the libs and Democrats aiming to demonize Trump may be at one another's throats on cable TV and social media, but they are also united in one cause: in this era that rewards partisan polarization, they are both incentivized to pretend there's no middle ground between Maga's blanket tariffs that threaten an immediate national recession and liberals' free trade fundamentalism that caused permanent Depression-like conditions in the heartland. Left unsaid in all of the political noise is the Goldilocks zone when it comes to trade: targeted tariffs in conjunction with other investment policies can create a more comprehensive industrial policy – which absolutely can create conditions to begin rebuilding American industry and boost manufacturing employment. That's not a theory. It's exactly what started happening just before Trump's second term. Once a doctrinaire free trader, Joe Biden as president championed a mix of carefully calibrated tax incentives, spending programs, and – yes – tariffs. He and his administration did a terrible job of publicizing the policy's triumph – but it was working. During Biden's term, the United States added more than 700,000 manufacturing jobs, far outpacing Trump's first term. Many of the jobs and factory investments occurred in Republican-dominated states that had been hammered by past free trade policies. 'Democrats should embrace tariffs as one component of a broader industrial strategy to revitalize American manufacturing and make whole communities that have been hollowed out by decades of bad trade policy,' the Pennsylvania representative Chris Deluzio recently wrote in an op-ed. Deluzio, who represents the kind of swing district Democrats often lose, added on X: 'President Trump's tariff approach has been chaotic and inconsistent … But the answer isn't to condemn all tariffs. That risks putting the Democrats even further out of touch with the hard-working people who used to be the lifeblood of the party. If you oppose all tariffs, you're signaling that you're comfortable with exploited foreign workers making your stuff at the expense of American workers. I'm not, and neither are most voters.' Despite echoing what had been the core economic doctrines of the most recent Democratic White House, Deluzio was promptly dogpiled by liberals and so-called Never Trump Republicans – some of whom called for him to be primaried and thrown out of Congress. Those criticizing Deluzio, Michigan's Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer, and other Democrats staking out a middle-ground position on tariffs see this as a with-us-or-against-us political litmus test. But populist Democrats, rather than their free trade absolutist critics, are not only right on the policy merits, but also more in touch with the nuanced politics of the issue. When trade policy became a high-profile national issue in the 1990s, the Democratic president Bill Clinton broke with unions and pushed Nafta, which delivered Democrats a jackpot of campaign cash from business donors. But the move so alienated working-class voters that some of the most consistently Democratic congressional districts quickly became the most reliably Republican in the country, according to a recent study by Princeton, Stanford and Yale researchers. Three decades later, as trade once again takes center stage, polls suggest a similar dynamic at play. Survey data shows a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with how Trump is using tariffs and how he is managing the economy – and Democrats are smart to home in on that line of criticism. But data also show that for the first time in generations, Republicans have equaled Democrats when voters are asked which party 'cares more about the needs and problems of people like you'. The takeaway: voters perceive Trump's tariff gambit as a policy initiative but also as a values statement. They rightly oppose Trump's specific form of tariffs, but they also seem to see the debate as a deeper 'which side are you on' litmus test. However dishonest and fraudulent Trump's particular tariff sales pitch is, his advocacy for an entirely different trade paradigm is designed to signal to America's working class that – unlike past presidents – he hears their long-ignored grievances since Nafta began laying waste to their communities. Put another way: Trump's trade war is part of his larger culture war. In a recent Lever Time interview, the United Automobile Workers president, Shawn Fain, summed up the discordant political moment. His union endorsed former vice-president Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, and Fain has critiqued both Trump's across-the-board tariffs and his labor policies. But Fain has also endorsed Trump's targeted auto industry tariffs and credited the president with centering trade policy as a priority, suggesting that was one reason nearly half of his union's members voted for Trump in the last election. 'In my first 28 years as a UAW member working at Chrysler, all I saw was plants close year after year, and I feel a rage,' said Fain, who donned a 'Ross Perot Was Right' T-shirt during the interview. 'And so when you see a person like Donald Trump come along and start talking about tariffs and trade and people still are threatening their plants being closed, that spoke to people.' A generation ago, Democrats seemed to appreciate the reality described by Fain – and they seemed to understand the error of their free-trade ways. 'We can't keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result – because it's a game that ordinary Americans are losing,' said Barack Obama in his 2008 presidential campaign. 'It's a game where trade deals like Nafta ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Walmart. That's what happens when the American worker doesn't have a voice at the negotiating table, when leaders change their positions on trade with the politics of the moment, and that's why we need a president who will listen to Main Street – not just Wall Street; a president who will stand with workers not just when it's easy, but when it's hard.' Obama's populism delivered Democrats a huge electoral victory that year, including in major industrial swing states. But as president, he quickly betrayed his promises to create fairer trade policies, instead championing more Nafta-style trade deals – thus giving Trump a political weapon to bludgeon Democrats with and win his first presidential term. Nearly a decade later, Trump no doubt hopes his tariffs will recreate his 2016 magic, goading his opponents into defending the trade status quo while he bills himself as a populist. Democrats don't have to take the bait – they can and should hammer his economic record and his particular use of tariffs, but they also must finally break with the free-trade orthodoxy that has electorally devastated their party and economically destroyed so much of America. David Sirota is a Guardian US columnist and an award-winning investigative journalist. He is an editor at large at Jacobin, and the founder of the Lever. He served as Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign speechwriter.
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's tariffs are a longtime goal fulfilled - and his biggest gamble yet
Donald Trump's politics have shifted considerably over his decades in the public sphere. But one thing he has been consistent on, since the 1980s, is his belief that tariffs are an effective means of boosting the US economy. Now, he's staking his presidency on his being right. At his Rose Garden event at the White House, surrounded by friends, conservative politicians and cabinet secretaries, Trump announced sweeping new tariffs on a broad range of countries – allies, competitors and adversaries alike. In a speech that was equal parts celebration and self-congratulation, regularly punctuated by applause from the crowd, the president recalled his longtime support of tariffs, as well as his early criticism of free trade agreements like Nafta and the World Trade Organization. The president acknowledged that he will face pushback in the coming days from "globalists" and "special interests", but he urged Americans to trust his instincts. "Never forget, every prediction our opponents made about trade for the last 30 years has been proven totally wrong," he said. Trump to charge tariffs of up to 50% on 'worst offenders' globally UK firms react to Trump tariffs: 'It's a huge blow to Scotland's whisky industry' No additional US tariffs for Canada, but no relief either Now, in a second term in which he is surrounded by like-minded advisers and is the dominant force in a Republican Party that controls both chambers of Congress, Trump is in a position to turn his vision of a new America-focused trade policy into reality. These policies, he said, had made the United States into a wealthy nation more than a century ago and would again. "For years, hard working American citizens were forced to sit on the sidelines as other nations got rich and powerful, much of it at our expense," he said. "With today's action, we are finally going to be able to make America great again - greater than ever before." It is still an enormous risk for this president to take. Economists of all stripes warn that these massive tariffs – 53% on China, 20% on the European Union and South Korea, with a 10% baseline on all nations – will be passed along to American consumers, raising prices and threatening a global recession. Ken Roggoff, the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, predicted that the chances of the US, the world's largest economy, falling into recession had risen to 50% on the back of this announcement. "He just dropped a nuclear bomb on the global trading system," Mr Roggoff told the BBC World Service, adding that the consequences for this level of taxes on imports into the US "is just mind-boggling". Trump's move also risks escalating a trade war with other countries and alienating allies that America has otherwise tried to strengthen ties with. The US, for instance, sees Japan and South Korea as a bulwark against Chinese expansionist ambitions. But those three countries recently announced that they would work together to respond to America's trade policies. If Trump is successful, however, he would fundamentally reshape a global economic order that America had originally helped to construct from the ashes of World War 2. He promises that this will rebuild American manufacturing, create new sources of revenue, and make America more self-reliant and insulated from the kind of global supply chain shocks that wreaked havoc on the US during the Covid pandemic. It's a tall order – and one that many believe to be highly unrealistic. But for a president who seems fixated on cementing his legacy, whether through ending wars, renaming geographic locations, acquiring new territory or dismantling federal programmes and its workforce, this is the biggest, most consequential prize to be won. It would be, he styled, America's "liberation day". What appears clear, however, is that Wednesday's announcement, if he follows through, is almost certain to mark a historic change. The question is whether it will be a legacy of achievement or one of notoriety. Trump's speech was triumphant - one that belied the potentially high costs his moves would impose on the American economy and on his own political standing. But, he said, it was worth it - even if, at the very end of his remarks, a small shadow of presidential doubt may have peaked through the bravado. "It's going to be a day that - hopefully - you're going to look back in years to come and you're going to say, you know, he was right." Trump's tariffs on China, EU and more, at a glance Six things that could get more expensive for Americans under Trump tariffs Watch: Key moments in Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs announcement
