Final Thoughts

Mind you, I think US mills have made it clear that they’re still committed to the decarbonization targets set before the second Trump administration came into office. But all along the value chain at Steel Summit, one got the sense that bottom-line concerns were taking precedence over decarbonization. At least from an SMU headline perspective, tariffs have a clear lead recently over decarb.

At the IIMA meeting, though, it was as if I had entered a parallel universe. Talking about net zero and definitions of “green steel,” of course. The word “tariff” was hardly mentioned at all. There was some talk of “turbulence” and “disruption” in the US. But the bulk of the presentations were squarely focused on decarbonization. There was even talk of frying pans in Europe being labeled as produced with green steel. Out of the frying pan, into…

Perhaps something that CRU’s Thais Terzian said during her presentation on decarbonization sheds light on the issue. She noted that policy decisions are driving decarbonization in metals, sometimes with industry input and sometimes without. The current presidential administration has taken its foot off the gas when it comes to sustainability. Rather, it’s even shown it’s not averse to gas itself (Echoes of “Drill, baby, drill.”).

Therefore, it makes sense that, especially when demand is not great and there are economic headwinds, decarb wouldn’t be the focus here in the US.

For much of the rest of the world, though, and especially Europe, that’s not the case. Governments are pushing ahead with sustainability targets and initiatives. The EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) officially goes into effect on Jan. 1 of next year. The US has always been opposed to such an initiative. At the IIMA meeting, though, participants seemed convinced that the whole world was poised to adopt such a system.

“Kicking the can” on global agreements has almost come to the end of the road. It’s hard to see how the US can remain siloed from the rest of the world on these issues. Hard decisions and bargaining need to come sooner rather than later. To think that the world’s largest economy can stay decoupled on these matters does not seem a viable long-term strategy. Some decisions will be reached. With the current administration’s track record, some fireworks could also be involved.

Although the term ‘tariff’ was hardly invoked, I did see the outlines of its influence. An executive from Vale spoke about the international miner planning “mega hubs” in various global regions, including one on the US Gulf Coast. These would make lower-emission iron ore products for use in the steel industry and would involve multiple facilities. The project was still being studied (no further info was provided as far as cost, exact location, etc.). Still, the executive said “all systems were a go” and there were “American boots on the ground” dealing with issues.

Of course, this was a subtle nod to President Trump’s trade policies — an international company working within the American system for a complex project with global implications. Of course, depending on who occupies the White House in 2028, we could see the clock spin back. A new administration could perhaps align more closely with the rest of the developed world. But that’s still nearly four years away. In the meantime, the pre-Trump II past is going to collide with the “Liberation Day” present. What will happen on impact is anybody’s guess. Let’s hope there are plans afoot to keep the “turbulence” to a minimum.