EU Rejects US Offer: Unravelling the Steel Tariff Dispute
Background
The US-EU trade dispute over steel and aluminium tariffs has been ongoing for several years, and there is no clear resolution in sight. The dispute began in 2018 when then-US President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from the EU, citing national security concerns. The EU responded with retaliatory tariffs on US goods including bourbon whiskey, Harley-Davidson motorcycles, and motorboats.
The two sides reached an agreement in October 2021 to end the dispute over steel and aluminium tariffs. The deal was a significant breakthrough. However, there are still significant disagreements between the two sides on how to define "sustainable steel" and how to enforce emissions standards.
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit
The US has proposed allowing club members to set their own emissions standards for steel production. This would give countries with lower emissions standards an unfair advantage, as they would be able to produce steel more cheaply. The EU has rejected this proposal, arguing that it would undermine the integrity of the Global Arrangement on Sustainable Steel and Aluminium (GSA).
Developments
Now, the EU and the US are at an impasse in their negotiations to end the tariffs on steel and aluminium. The EU has rejected a proposed US solution, saying that it is not WTO-compliant and discriminates in favour of domestic producers.
The dispute is also multifaceted. The EU has said that the US proposal would allow countries to set their own emissions standards for steel production, which would give them an unfair advantage. The US has said that its proposal is WTO-compliant and that it is necessary to protect American jobs. The two sides have also been unable to agree on how to define "green steel." The EU wants to include steel produced with EAF and DRI technology, while the US wants to include only steel produced with zero-carbon emissions.
The dispute is fuelled by several factors. One is the lack of a CO2 allowance trading system in the United States. The EU has heavily invested in the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) to protect its domestic steel industry, which is one of the biggest CO2 emitters in the world. However, the US steel industry is a much cleaner producer by international standards and relies more heavily on Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) and Direct Reduced Iron (DRI) technology than the European Union.
Another factor is the EU's apparent lack of interest in reducing its own steel capacity. The US government has a greater interest in fighting overcapacity, but the EU is more concerned with protecting the jobs of its steelworkers. This is especially true in Germany, one of the world's largest steel producers.
Implications
The outcome of the negotiations between the EU and the US on steel and aluminium tariffs will have a significant impact on the global steel market. The tariffs are 25% on steel and 10% on aluminium from Europe, while EU measures target products such as bourbon whiskey and Harley-Davidson motorcycles. If the two sides reach a deal, it could help to reduce tensions and prevent a trade war. However, if they cannot come to an agreement, the tariffs will go back into effect in October, which could disrupt the global steel market and lead to higher prices for consumers. The dispute is also a test of the strength of the WTO. If the two sides cannot reach a deal, it will be a blow to the WTO and could make it more challenging to resolve future trade disputes
However, the chances of an agreement are slim. The US is demanding that the EU reduce its steel capacity, while the EU is refusing to do so. The US is also concerned about the EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), which could give European steelmakers an unfair advantage. The US presidential elections in 2024 are also likely to make an agreement even more difficult. The current US administration is willing to make concessions to reach a deal, but the next administration may not be as willing. This means that the two sides may be unable to reach a deal before the tariffs go back into effect in October.
On July 20, the EU's trade commissioner reiterated his position that the US cannot resolve its steel dispute with Europe through a deal that discriminates against other countries. This underscores the challenge of finding a compromise to end the standoff. Ultimately, the outcome of the negotiations between the EU and the US on steel and aluminium tariffs is uncertain. If the two sides cannot reach a deal, it could have a significant impact on the global steel market and lead to higher prices for consumers.
OPEC Cuts Oil Production
On April 2nd, OPEC+ shocked markets by announcing a production cut of more than 3 million barrels per day (bpd), in a move described by the US government as inadvisable given current market uncertainty. This immediately led to an increase in oil prices. Despite the risks of inflation, it is economically sound for the producers to make such cuts. Ultimately, unlike in October 2022 when Biden threatened ‘consequences’ against Saudi Arabia for similar cuts, this time such strong criticism has yet to happen. Therefore, the statement from the US may be a chiding rather than anything of consequence. The OPEC+ move was inspired by several factors, and is likewise projected to have several effects.
Firstly, the cuts were aimed at increasing the price of oil. This immediately manifested with the price of a barrel of oil increasing by $5 to $85. Recently, there has been a drop in oil prices partially caused by the banking crisis in the USA and UK where investors sold commodities leading oil prices to drop to near $70 a barrel. In the 2008 crisis, oil prices dropped severely which likely drove producers to hedge against the risk of history repeating itself.
Secondly, the size of the cut may indicate OPEC’s fear of global recession. Since recession worries have been present in the years post-COVID, it is obvious that the world's oil consumption could be in jeopardy. As a result, oil producers took proactive measures in reducing production to raise prices. The size of the cut was justified by Russian minister, Alexander Novak, as aimed at market stability, with some commentators viewing this as implying a fear of US-based recession. Indeed, the cuts may also be a bet that stronger demand from China will offset any reduced demand in the west.
In addition to China’s ability to offset, there are geopolitical and economic ambitions that may lead OPEC+ members, especially Saudi Arabia, to raise prices by cutting oil production. Saudi Arabia is a leader within OPEC+ when setting prices for oil. For Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS hereon), there is a need to pursue a strategy of non-alignment where Saudi Arabia can maintain its ties with the US and China by not succumbing to pressure from either. This is essential because the US is a strategic partner for arms, while China remains Saudi Arabia’s largest purchaser of oil. Recently, China has also played a role in regional politics such as through the recent détente between Iran and MBS.
Potential Effects
This cut resulted in higher oil prices, raised tensions with western countries and risks further inflationary pressures. Excessively high oil prices are likely to increase inflation especially for goods that Western countries are likely to need. Moreover, the Biden administration strongly opposed such an increase in oil prices and therefore, the persistence from Riyadh is unlikely to improve relations between the two states.
For the war in Ukraine, higher oil prices mean there will be money flowing to the Kremlin adding to their war chest and building Putin’s resilience in Ukraine. Moreover, the sudden nature of these oil cuts, which normally take weeks of discussion, further indicates a state of affairs dominated by nations focused on their own self interests. The resulting uncertainty around the actions OPEC+ can take relating to oil production could result in greater volatility that may compromise the health of a frailing global economy.
There are fears among some experts that we may be headed towards a 1970s style stagflation. This is unlikely for two main reasons. First, while oil prices have increased, these are likely to be contained through spare production capacity in other parts of the world as well as strategic reserves in Western countries. Second, and most importantly, the world has a lower reliance on oil today than it did in the 1970s. Therefore, an increase in prices, in the era of energy transition, may have a lower likelihood of resulting in stagflation.
Future Projections
Ultimately, there is a possibility that the spike in oil prices will be short-lived since it affects global demand forecasts at a time when the international economy is already under financial stress. While the cut was driven by decreased forecasts, there is a risk that oil demand will remain low when one considers the higher oil prices caused by the production cuts. OPEC+ may therefore be forced to consider reducing prices to drive up demand in the medium term.
It remains unclear what these cuts will mean for interest rates. In order to curb inflationary pressures arising from these production cuts, central banks may have to increase interest rates. Where the price of oil will be is another uncertainty. While initially heading up to $85 after the announcement, the strongest possibility is that reduced supply will drive this even further to around $100.
On a positive note, this production cut and related price increase may speed up the transition to renewable energy. Such a price rise would lead consumers to consider renewable and green energy options as an alternative to oil and oil products. In the aftermath of these oil cuts, the White House and EU affirmed the central importance of clean energy, its adoption, and use in ensuring global energy security. The EU has already banned the sale of diesel and petrol cars by 2035 in a further sign of their commitment to the energy transition. Regardless, these cuts are likely to have an ongoing economic impact globally and it remains to be seen how further action from OPEC+ will influence political relations with the US, China and Russia.
Wheat supply in a de-globalising world
International sanction regimes are disrupting supply chains across the world. In this research paper, analysts from London Politica’s Global Commodities Watch (GCW) provide an overview of the major stakeholders, critical infrastructure, trade routes, supply and demand side risks, and forecasted trends for wheat.