From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Mariane Angela

Former President Donald Trump issued a warning Monday about imposing 200% tariffs on John Deere products if the company relocates its manufacturing operations to Mexico.

Trump engaged with local farmers and manufacturers during an event in Smithton, Pennsylvania, about the impact of China’s economic policies on the U.S. economy, according to the Associated Press. The former president highlighted his economic strategy against Vice President Kamala Harris by pointing out the potential benefits of tariffs and increased energy production, which he argued could help lower costs and protect local industries.

Trump highlighted John Deere’s recent decision to move some manufacturing to Mexico, and he threatened a 200% tariff on the company should it proceed with its plans under his potential administration, the AP reported.

JUST IN: Donald Trump points at the tractors behind him, tells John Deere that if they move their business to Mexico he is going to put a 200% tariff on them.

🔥🔥🔥

The comments came while Trump was speaking to farmers in Pennsylvania.

“I will tell you that I just noticed… pic.twitter.com/5wpEAuTEo4

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 23, 2024

“I just noticed behind me John Deere tractors, I know a lot about John Deere. I love the company, but as you know, they announced a few days ago that they’re gonna move a lot of their manufacturing business to Mexico,” Trump said, according to a video posted on X. “I’m just notifying John Deere right now. If you do that, we’re putting a 200% tariff on everything that you wanna sell into the United States. So that if I win, John Deere is gonna be paying 200%.”

John Deere previously announced that it will lay off roughly 610 employees across three of its plants in Illinois and Iowa. The company announced on May 31 that it will relocate skid steer and compact track loader production from Dubuque, Iowa, to Mexico by the end of 2026 as part of a broader strategy to enhance efficiency and manage rising manufacturing costs amidst changing business conditions.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Fall harvest is in the storehouse. Now, let’s put away all proposals to cap fertilizer inputs to save the earth. Canadian farmers are ensuring food security, not fueling the droughts, fires, or storms that critics unfairly attribute to them.

The Saskatoon-based Global Institute for Food Security (GIFS) did as fulsome an analysis as possible on carbon emissions in Saskatchewan, Western Canada, Canada, and international peers. Transportation, seed, fertilizer and manure, crop inputs, field activities, energy emissions, and post-harvest work were all in view.

The studies, published last year, had very reassuring results. Canadian crop production was less carbon intensive than other places, and Western Canada was a little better yet. This proved true crop by crop.

Carbon emissions per tonne of canola production were more than twice as high in France and Germany as in Canada. Australia was slightly less carbon intensive than Canada, but still trailed Western Canada.

For non-durum wheat, Canada blew Australia, France, Germany, and the U.S. away with roughly half the carbon intensity of those countries. For durum wheat, the U.S. had twice the carbon intensity of Canada, and Italy almost five times as much.

Canada was remarkably better with lentil production. Producers in Australia had 5.5 times the carbon emissions per tonne produced as Canada, while the U.S. had 8 times as much. In some parts of Canada, lentil production was a net carbon sink.

Canadian field peas have one-tenth the carbon emissions per tonne of production as is found in Germany, and one-sixth that of France or the United States.

According to GIFS, Canada succeeds by “regenerative agriculture, including minimal soil disturbance, robust crop rotation, covering the land, integrating livestock and the effective management of crop inputs.”

The implementation of zero-till farming is especially key. If the land isn’t worked up, most nutrients and gases stay in the soil–greenhouse gases included.

Western Canada has been especially keen to adopt the zero-till approach, in contrast to the United States, where only 30 percent of cropland is zero-till.

The adoption of optimal methods has already lowered Canadian carbon emissions substantially. Despite all of this, some net zero schemers aim to cut carbon emissions by fertilizer by 30 percent, just as it does in other sectors.

This target is undeserved for Canadian agriculture because the industry has already made drastic, near-maximum progress. Nitrates help crops grow, so the farmer is already vitally motivated to keep nitrates in the soil and out of the skies–alleged global warming or not. Fewer nutrients mean fewer yields and lower proteins.

The farmer’s personal and economic interests already motivate the best fertilizer use that is practically possible. Universal adoption of optimal techniques could lower emissions a bit more, but Canada is so far ahead in this game that a hard cap on fertilizer emissions could only be detrimental.

In 2021, Fertilizer Canada commissioned a study by MNP to estimate the costs of a 20 percent drop in fertilizer use to achieve a 30 percent reduction in emissions. The study suggested that by 2030, bushels of production per acre would drop significantly for canola (23.6), corn (67.9), and spring wheat (36.1). By 2030, the annual value of lost production for those crops alone would reach $10.4 billion.

If every animal and human in Canada died, leaving the country an unused wasteland, the drop in world greenhouse gas emissions would be only 1.4 percent. Any talk of reducing capping fertilizer inputs for the greater good is nonsense.

Lee Harding is a Research Fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.