Tariffs can encourage companies to invest in domestic production and create jobs. At the same time, they can also spark trade wars, leading to job losses in affected industries. Their economic impact is certainly complicated. At present, the U.S. is in a major tariff conflict with Canada, Mexico, and China after President Trump raised tariffs significantly.
He imposed a 25% duty on imports from Mexico and Canada and doubled tariffs on Chinese goods to 20%. This led to new trade disputes with important partners. Industry experts say these tariffs could affect $2.2 trillion in annual trade, impacting many industries.
But Trump firmly believes these tariffs aim to reduce the trade deficit. By making imported goods costlier, they are pushing Americans to buy local products.
-
As per nbcnews, in 2024, Mexico, China, and Canada account for 42% of U.S. imports, making them key players in any trade conflict.
How Canada, China, and Mexico Fired Back
Canada reacted quickly. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced 25% tariffs on $20.7 billion worth of U.S. goods. He plans to expand these tariffs if the current ones remain. This mainly affects energy and minerals.
Similarly, China responded with 15% tariffs on some U.S. farm products like cotton, wheat, corn, and chicken. They added a 10% tariff on other goods, including dairy, fruits, vegetables, pork, beef, and soybeans. These tariffs will start on March 10. As per credible news sources, China’s commerce ministry also limited exports to 15 U.S. companies and added 10 U.S. firms to its “unreliable entity list.”
These trade barriers follow a pattern from earlier administrations. Last year, the White House decided to raise tariffs on Chinese semiconductors to 50%, while duties on Chinese electric vehicles quadrupled to over 100%. A new set of 25% tariffs on aluminum and steel will take effect soon, escalating tensions further.
Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum stated the country has backup plans to handle U.S. tariffs.
U.S. Dependence on Imported Critical Minerals
A report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies highlights the U.S.’s reliance on imports for critical minerals. The U.S. relies entirely on imports for 12 of the 50 identified critical minerals and for over 50% of another 29.
Consequently, tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China could raise costs for the U.S. These nations supplied 41% of U.S. metal and mineral imports in 2023. China leads the global production of 29 critical minerals and controls processing for rare earths, graphite, lithium, cobalt, and copper and is a major supplier for the U.S.
Doug Ford Warns of Nickel Cutoff Over U.S. Tariffs
Ontario Premier Doug Ford ripped off Trump’s exorbitant tariff rates on Canada. He threatened to halt nickel and electricity exports to the U.S. in response to the 25% tariffs on Canadian goods set to take effect tomorrow.
In an interview with NBC News NOW on Monday, Ford called the tariffs an “absolute disaster” for both nations, warning they would create “massive problems” for residents on both sides of the border.
Ford said,
“We will respond strongly and we don’t want to. “On the critical minerals I will stop shipments going into the U.S. for nickel. I will shut down manufacturing because 50 per cent of the nickel you use is coming from Ontario.”
He further opined,
”You need our uranium, you need our potash, you need our high-grade nickel. I will stockpile our high-grade nickel, that 50 percent of your military and manufacture needs. Your aluminum, your steel, your lumber. It will be an absolute disaster and this is all due to one person. That is President Trump.”
- READ MORE: Trump’s Tactic to Make America Great Again: Expanding Domestic Oil, Gas, and Critical Minerals
U.S. Aluminum Imports and Tariffs: Impact on Costs and Supply Chains
Domestic production of aluminum is just one third of its needs. According to Statista, the United States imported about 4.8 million metric tons of aluminum for consumption in 2024.
Mexico and Canada supply around 90% of U.S. aluminum scrap imports. The U.S. heavily relies on aluminum and steel imports, with Canada providing 58% of aluminum and 23% of steel imports.
Meanwhile, the apparent consumption of aluminum totaled about 4.3 million metric tons. Canada is a top aluminum supplier to the U.S., sending most of its primary aluminum for use in American manufacturing.
Imports of aluminum for consumption in the United States from 2010 to 2024 (in 1,000 metric tons)
Disrupting these supply chains will raise costs for industries such as automotive manufacturing. In this industry, parts often cross borders several times before the final assembly.
Tariff History Repeats Itself
The U.S. aluminum sector has faced trade measures before. In 2018, then-President Donald Trump imposed a 10% tariff on imported aluminum and 25% on steel to boost domestic production. These tariffs later extended to the EU, Canada, and Mexico.
In August 2024, under President Joe Biden, aluminum tariffs rose to 25%, increasing the U.S. Midwest premium by over 30%. Trump’s potential re-election could lead to further tariff hikes, creating market uncertainty.
Increased Aluminum Prices
The U.S. Midwest premium, a key indicator of aluminum tariff risk, has risen since Trump’s election win. S&P Global revealed the current price (as of February 25, 2024) for the US Aluminum P1020 Midwest Transaction Premium is 41.75 cents per pound.
Midwest Transaction Premium (MWP) Price History
The U.S. and Canada both want to secure critical mineral supply chains, even with trade tensions. This is because collaborating in mineral exploration, processing, and production boosts long-term stability and economic security.
However, building new domestic processing facilities and securing alternative mineral sources will take years. Thus, short-term reliance on Canadian and Mexican metals is unavoidable.
Winners and Losers: The Effects of New Tariffs on U.S. Industries
The latest tariffs will have mixed effects across industries. Some domestic producers will benefit from less foreign competition, while others will face rising production costs. Goldman Sachs has recently rolled out an evaluation report that highlights the potential winners and losers of Trump tariffs.
Winners: Industries producing aluminum, steel, and oil and gas extraction will likely benefit the most. Higher tariffs on imports in these sectors will protect domestic producers. As these industries compete with imports, new tariffs will make foreign goods pricier, boosting demand for U.S.-made products.
Losers: The biggest losers will be secondary steel and aluminum producers and petroleum product manufacturers. These sectors rely heavily on imported raw materials. Higher tariffs on steel, aluminum, and oil will significantly raise their production costs. Midstream manufacturers of products like auto parts, beverage cans, and window frames will also feel the pressure.
Tariffs on Canadian and Chinese aluminum could disrupt global supply chains, raising costs for U.S. manufacturers. Supply shortages may arise as producers redirect exports to other markets. The long-term fix is to boost North American supply chains. We need to invest in local processing. Also, the U.S. and Canada must work together for steady access to key materials.
Can the U.S. Really Be Self-Reliant with Trump’s Tariffs?
Trade tensions are shaking up industries and slowing investments. Tariffs on key imports like steel, semiconductors, oil, gas, and medicine could hurt U.S. businesses more than those on Chinese goods.
Many American companies rely on these imports to stay competitive. If tariffs keep changing, businesses may hold back on investing due to rising costs and supply issues.
Industry experts speculate higher tariffs on critical imports could do more damage than those targeting China. The last trade war (2018-2019) showed how foreign retaliation can hit U.S. exports hard. More significantly the U.S. National security could also at risk—China has already cut off supplies of key minerals like gallium and germanium, which are essential for defense.
However, a possible solution lies in stronger U.S.-Canada ties with favourable tariffs. A stable North American supply chain for critical minerals can reduce reliance on foreign sources and protect both the economy and national security.
- FURTHER READING: Trump’s Tariffs and Climate Rollbacks: How 2025 is Shaking Copper Markets and Clean Energy Goals
The post Trump’s Tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico: A Risky Bet for U.S. Critical Minerals and Aluminum? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
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.
