Canada’s steel and aluminum industries are sounding the alarm over what they describe as an “existential threat” while urging the federal government to align with the United States and Mexico in imposing tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum to prevent market dumping. This plea comes amid growing concerns that Canada could become a conduit for Chinese products circumventing American and Mexican tariffs.
Why Canada’s Steel and Aluminum Industries Raise The Alarm
Canada currently produces primary aluminum—rather than recycled aluminum—at eight smelters located in Quebec and one in Kitimat, British Columbia. These facilities are owned by three major companies: Alcoa, Aluminerie Alouette, and Rio Tinto. Rio Tinto also operates an alumina refinery in Vaudreuil, Quebec.
The Canadian aluminum industry produces a wide range of products, including doors, windows, house siding, beverage cans, foil products, cooking utensils, and electrical wiring.
As of 2022, Canada ranked as the world’s 4th-largest producer of primary aluminum, following China, India, and Russia. The North American country produced about 3.0 million tonnes of primary aluminum in 2022, which accounts for about 4.4 percent of global production. In contrast, China alone produces more than half of the world’s aluminum.
A notable advantage of Canada’s aluminum industry is its lower carbon footprint compared to other major producers, thanks to its reliance on renewable energy sources, particularly hydroelectric power.
In 2023, Canada’s smelter production of aluminum was estimated at around 3 million metric tons as seen below. Throughout the observed period, Canada’s aluminum production volume remained relatively stable. The country’s peak production occurred in both 2016 and 2017, when it reached 3.2 million metric tons.
How Significant Is Canada’s Aluminum Production and Export Market?
Canada is the world’s second-largest exporter of aluminum, with aluminum product exports totaling $18.2 billion in 2022. The United States is the primary market for these Canadian exports, making it a crucial partner in the aluminum trade. This close trade relationship underscores the importance of maintaining strong economic ties and competitive advantages in the aluminum industry.
However, the recent actions of the U.S. government of imposing tariffs on China imports spurred the industry’s interest to do the same.
Catherine Cobden, President and CEO of the Canadian Steel Producers Association (CSPA), emphasized the urgency of the issue during a press conference in Ottawa. She stressed the need for Canada to act in concert with its North American trade partners under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).
“We can’t be the only CUSMA country that is not taking this serious action,” Cobden stated, highlighting the critical nature of the moment for Canada’s steel industry.
-
The CSPA represents 13 steel companies, including major players like Stelco, Algoma Steel Inc., and Rio Tinto.
In late July, Aluminum Alloy Ingot prices dropped across key regions. In the U.S., higher inventories and weaker demand in automotive and construction sectors led to a decline. Germany saw similar drops due to reduced manufacturing activity. In China, prices fell due to increased domestic production and slower demand, with domestic brands outperforming foreign competitors in the automotive industry.
The Canadian industry leaders’ call to action follows the U.S. government’s May announcement of a 25% tariff increase on Chinese steel and aluminum. Additionally, the U.S. has imposed higher tariffs on other Chinese products, including electric vehicles (EVs), semiconductors, critical minerals, and batteries.
In response, Mexico, in July, introduced a 10% tariff on aluminum and a 25% tariff on steel not produced within Mexico, in collaboration with the U.S. These measures aim to prevent Chinese producers from bypassing tariffs through Mexican trade routes.
The Implications of Urging Tariffs on Chinese Imports
The CSPA and the Aluminium Association of Canada are advocating for a 25% tariff on all Chinese steel products and most aluminum products entering Canada. This would mirror the recent U.S. decision to impose tariffs on 289 different Chinese steel and aluminum imports. Cobden stressed the urgency of the situation, warning that failure to act could result in job losses and hinder economic growth and investment in Canada’s steel and aluminum industries.
The concern now is that Canada could become a “back door” for Chinese steel and aluminum entering North America, undermining the protective measures taken by the U.S. and Mexico. This potential loophole has prompted Canadian industry leaders to push for similar tariffs to safeguard domestic jobs and industries.
What more Jean Simard, President and CEO of the Aluminium Association of Canada noted that:
”China’s metal is seven times more carbon-intensive than Canada’s.”
Thus, Simard said that allowing Chinese steel and aluminum into Canada would increase the country’s carbon footprint and undermine efforts to promote sustainable industrial practices. He called on the government to act swiftly to protect Canadian jobs, technology investments, and the environment.
What Are The Consequences of No Action?
The potential consequences of failing to impose tariffs are stark. Over 760,000 tonnes of Chinese steel entered the American market in 2023, with similar amounts the previous year. These volumes are 20% higher than the current amount of Chinese steel entering Canada annually. Industry leaders fear that any Chinese steel diverted from the U.S. market due to tariffs could flood the Canadian market, further eroding the domestic steel and aluminum industries.
The CSPA and Aluminium Association of Canada are urging the federal government to act quickly and decisively. They warn that any delay could lead to a further decline in the Canadian steel and aluminum industries, with long-term consequences for employment, economic growth, and Canada’s position in the global market.
As the government considers its next steps, industry leaders are making it clear that urgent action is needed to protect Canada’s steel and aluminum sectors from the growing threat of Chinese overcapacity.
The post Canada’s Steel and Aluminum Industries Demand Tariffs to Block Chinese Dumping appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy1 year agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Climate Change2 years agoAnalysis: China’s CO2 falls 1% in Q2 2024 in first quarterly drop since Covid-19
-
Climate Change1 year ago嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测