The $11bn worth of tariffs on U.S. chemical and plastics exports enacted by China put almost $18bn in U.S. economic activity at risk along with nearly 55,000 US jobs, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said.

×

Punitive measures imposed on China because of the U.S. Section 301 investigation have incited retaliatory tariffs on $11 billion in U.S. chemicals and plastics exports and put nearly 55,000 American jobs and $18 billion in domestic activity at risk because of reduced demand for those products, according to new economic report published on September 6th by the American Chemistry Council (ACC).

The release of the new data coincides with ACC’s filing of public comments on U.S. ‘List 3’ and follows on the heels of testimony given in August by ACC Director of International Trade, Ed Brzytwa, in which ACC called on policymakers to remove all 1,505 chemicals and plastics products, valued at $16.4 billion, from List 3.

“It’s unavoidable that China’s tariffs on U.S. chemicals and plastics exports will result in reduced demand for those exports,” said Emily Sanchez, ACC director of economics and data analytics and chief author of the new report.

“Depending on the elasticity of demand for U.S. products in China, the retaliatory tariffs could result in substantial losses for American producers, their employees, and for the communities that depend on the economic activity that workers in the chemicals and plastics industry generate.”

ACC’s analysis presents two potential scenarios: a “baseline case,” in which Chinese importers are more challenged to find alternative sources to U.S. products; and a “worst case,” where Chinese customers can more readily adjust their supply chains to substitute for U.S.-sourced goods.

In the baseline case, ACC estimates that the loss in U.S. chemicals and plastics exports to China would be equivalent to $1.6 billion annually. Losses to U.S. chemical and plastics exports could reach as high as $6.1 billion annually under a worst-case scenario, according to ACC.

“If numbers are the universal language, then there should be no language barrier preventing the U.S. and China from understanding the damage that tariffs are ready to inflict on one another’s economies,” Brzytwa said. 

“Both sides have proven that they have the other’s most thriving domestic industries, like chemicals, in their crosshairs.

Now, it’s time for the U.S. and China to steer this trade war to a sensible, productive, and stable conclusion. For China’s part, it must recognize that the path it has followed now for decades – flouting World Trade Organization principles and agreements – is no longer in its best economic interest.”

At the same time, the data also illustrate that the current U.S. trade actions may lead to severe, unintended consequences that should not be overlooked by the Administration.

“As the U.S. Administration continues to erect costly barriers to accessing global supply chains and foreign customer markets, the Chinese government is actively working towards directing industrial capacity expansions in their own domestic economy and eliminating tariff and other barriers to doing business with other (non-U.S.) foreign partners,” Sanchez noted.

“The loss in demand due to retaliatory tariffs on U.S. chemical exports to China will reduce the competitiveness of chemical manufacturers in the U.S. and, as a result, output and job losses in the chemical industry will accrue due to lost demand for chemistry. This lost manufacturing activity will be felt upstream as suppliers to the industry face reduced demand for their output and it will be felt in the local communities where workers spend their wages,” Sanchez added.

To that point, ACC’s public comments on List 3 also include a growing list of 21 firsthand accounts from companies exposed to the potentially damaging impacts from the Administration’s China Section 301 tariffs and Section 232 tariffs and quotas on steel and aluminum imports.

The anecdotes forebode significant disruptions to supply chain operations – incentivizing companies to move U.S. production overseas due to the sudden, uneven playing field that tariffs would create in the global marketplace.

“A trade war will neither achieve a more balanced trading relationship between the U.S. and China nor advance the interests of the U.S. economy, manufacturers, and consumers,” Brzytwa reiterated. “We strongly urge the U.S. government to avoid this action, rescind the tariffs currently in effect, and therefore preempt additional retaliation by China.”