Over the past three years, battery recycling has received heightened attention, raising critical questions: What is the true state of recycling today? Can...

The post An Overview of the Global Battery Recycling Industry appeared first on Cleantech Group.

Photo by Architect of the Capitol | U.S. government work via Flickr

The July jobs report released last Friday wasn’t pretty. It showed weaker than anticipated U.S. job growth in July, and there were substantial downward revisions of jobs numbers for May and June as well. Economists predicted a slowdown. The chaos of tariff threats has created substantial uncertainty, which is bad for the economy, and the tariffs that have gone into effect have raised prices. It’s no surprise, then, that we’re seeing a slowdown in jobs. 

Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi noted on social media, “It’s no mystery why the economy is struggling; blame increasing U.S. tariffs and highly restrictive immigration policy. The tariffs are cutting increasingly deeply into the profits of American companies and the purchasing power of American households. Fewer immigrant workers means a smaller economy.”

But instead of reflecting on mistakes in economic policy or offering some austerity suggestion, like limiting U.S.  children to  two dolls each , President Donald Trump blamed the messenger, firing the government official in charge of the data release, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Erika McEntarfer. He baselessly asserted that the bad news was “concocted” and suggested that he knows better than the data. The economy is great, according to him, and he will find a commissioner to tell him so.

Trump’s approach is a disaster for economic decision making and for public trust. The BLS is an independent agency with a strong legacy of providing the data that businesses, analysts and policymakers need. Good economic decisions require reliable data. As the American Economics Association wrote: “The BLS has long had a well-deserved reputation for professional excellence and nonpartisan integrity. Safeguarding this tradition is vital for the continued health of the U.S. economy and public trust in our institutions.” 

The BLS monthly jobs report provides a timely snapshot of labor market dynamics which inform investing and hiring decisions as well as policy choices. BLS data also measures the rate of inflation through the consumer price index. The rising price of goods is not only a key economic indicator but also the scale by which Social Security payments are adjusted and a point of reference in private and union wage negotiations.

BLS data are essential to understanding what is going on in the economy, when a slowdown is emerging, and the cost of daily life. The independence and integrity of the agency, long assumed and supported by both parties, is now under attack.

Wisconsinites lived through something like this more than a decade ago. Former Republican Gov. Scott Walker promised to create 250,000 jobs in his first term. He focused on the goal relentlessly, at least until it became clear that he would not meet it. (In fact, the Wisconsin economy didn’t even meet Walker’s first term goal across his two terms – adding just 233,000 jobs by the time he left office after serving for eight years.)

In the first years of Walker’s  “relentless focus on jobs” under his administration’s tagline  “Wisconsin is Open for Business,” the monthly numbers showed that Wisconsin’s economy was growing more slowly than the national labor market and neighboring states. 

Walker blamed the data. He insisted that we wait instead for a federal source which was more reliable, but had a substantial time lag. As someone who watches this data, I can assure that this was the only time in my three-decade career when differences between monthly and quarterly sources of federal jobs data were a policy talking point. 

But in the end, the data issue was just a distraction from the truth. Wisconsin was growing more slowly, and no amount of complaining about the data or waiting for another source on jobs could change that fact. Eventually, the Walker administration went silent on both the data and the promised 250,000 jobs. 

Trump’s approach is worse than waiting for another source of data. His firing of the commissioner suggests that he’ll only accept data that confirms his narrative. And that makes it harder for any of us to trust any data the federal government is willing to release. 

That’s bad for the economy and bad for democracy. As narrow and nerdy as this topic may seem, we all have an interest in facts and reliable data. We have had a government infrastructure capable of producing it. We lose it at our own peril.

A container ship arrives at the Port of Oakland on Aug. 1, 2025 in Oakland, California. President Donald Trump announced that his Aug. 1 deadline for trade deals will not be extended and sweeping tariffs will be imposed on certain countries beginning that day. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump pushed ahead with his promise to raise tariffs on foreign goods by Aug. 1, signing an order late Thursday increasing import taxes on products from nearly every U.S. trading partner.

Trump’s directive, and new data on weaker job growth, sent markets tumbling Friday.

The president imposed a 15% base tariff on products imported from nearly three dozen nations across five continents, plus the 27 trading nations that comprise the European Union. Trump slapped higher rates on select other countries, ranging from 18% on goods from Nicaragua to 30% on South Africa and 50% on Brazil.

The White House hailed the “reciprocal” tariffs as “a necessary and powerful tool to put America First after many years of unsustainable trade deficits that threaten our economy and national security,” according to a press release accompanying the executive order.

Trump describes the tariffs as “reciprocal” because they are his response to countries that have trade deficits with the U.S. — meaning that country sells more products to the U.S. than it buys.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer called the new rates “historic.”

“Over the past few months, the President’s tariff program and the ensuing ‘Trump Round’ of trade negotiations have accomplished what the World Trade Organization and multilateral negotiations have not been able to achieve at scale: expansive new market access for U.S. exporters, increased tariffs to defend critical American industries, and trillions of new manufacturing investments and purchases of goods that will create great American jobs and help reassert American leadership in key strategic sectors,” Greer said in a statement Wednesday.

The tariff announcement, combined with a weaker-than-expected jobs report Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, caused sell-offs Friday from the three major U.S. stock indexes, according to financial media reports.

Trump fumed Friday afternoon about report adjustments that significantly decreased jobs numbers for May and June, even calling for the commissioner for labor statistics to be fired.

Tariffs and lawsuits

Trump made history earlier this year when he became the first president to trigger tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The move sparked legal challenges from small businesses and Democratic-led states, and the plaintiffs faced the Trump administration Thursday in federal appeals court.

Tariffs are taxes on imported products that U.S. companies and other buyers pay to the U.S. government.

Trump announced staggering tariffs under an emergency declaration on April 2, what he referred to as “Liberation Day,” but delayed the new import taxes after global markets plummeted in response to the shock announcement.

Trump also separately announced Thursday a 35% levy on imported products from Canada that fall outside the bounds of an already established trade agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

Trump continued a 25% tariff on certain Mexican goods, but paused any rate increases to allow for 90 days of negotiations, according to media reports. The U.S. is continuing negotiations with China, whose products face a base import tax rate of 30%.

Marc Noland, executive vice president and director of studies for the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said Trump’s latest tariff rates are “unfortunate.”

“It will contribute to higher prices and slower growth here in the United States,” Noland said, adding there’s “a question about how sustainable they are legally here in the U.S.”

“And it’s particularly unfortunate, because I’m looking at the entire list of countries and see that the countries with the highest rates are the countries that are in the worst shape — Laos gets 40%, Syria got 41%,  Myanmar gets 40%. It’s the poorest, most desperate countries that are getting hit with the highest tariffs. So it’s bad for us and it’s bad for the world,” Noland told States Newsroom in an interview Friday.

The 15% rate on imports from dozens of countries mirrors the deals Trump announced in recent weeks with Japan, South Korea and European Union — though many details remain unknown.

“There are real questions about what exactly did anybody agree to,” Noland said. “And you know this, these don’t have the force of law that a treaty negotiated and passed by our Congress and somebody else’s national legislature have like, say, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, which, as we see, was unilaterally abrogated.”

‘Predictable’ trade agenda urged

Trade and industry advocates have also reacted to the new tariffs.

Gary Shapiro, CEO and vice chair of the Consumer Technology Association, issued a statement Thursday saying Trump’s new rates “highlight the uncertainty American innovators face in today’s trade environment.”

“CTA continues to urge the Administration and Congress to pursue a predictable, forward-looking trade agenda rooted in fairness and collaboration with trusted partners,” said Shapiro, whose organization hosts the annual CES trade show in Las Vegas, Nevada. “American innovation thrives when markets are open, trade rules are clear, and businesses are free to focus on creating jobs and bringing groundbreaking technologies to market.”

The National Foreign Trade Council warned that “Whatever progress that’s ultimately achieved as part of these new trade deals will come at the steep price of significant U.S. tariff increases and the erosion of trust with America’s key partners.”

The statement Thursday from the industry group’s president, Jake Colvin, continued: “Institutionalizing the highest U.S. duties since the Great Depression, coupled with ongoing uncertainty, will ultimately make American businesses less competitive globally and consumers worse off while harming relationships with close geopolitical allies and trading partners.” 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on Feb. 3, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  Trump was joined by, left to right, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, former Executive Chairman of Fox Corporation Rupert Murdoch and Oracle CTO Larry Ellison. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Democratic lawmakers argued in a new legal filing this week that President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs usurped congressional power, and they urged a federal appellate court to strike down the duties on foreign imports.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is set to hear oral arguments over some of Trump’s tariffs after a lower court blocked them in May. Despite being tied up in court, Trump continued threatening tariffs Wednesday on numerous trading partners, including a 50% import tax on goods from Brazil.

Nearly 200 lawmakers signed onto the amicus brief Tuesday, asserting that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, under which Trump triggered the duties, “does not confer the power to impose or remove tariffs.”

The lawmakers argued that Trump’s unprecedented use of IEEPA violates Article I of the U.S. Constitution that authorizes Congress to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” and “regulate commerce with foreign nations.”

“This reflects the Framers’ interest in ensuring the most democratically accountable branch — the one closest to the People — be responsible for enacting taxes, duties, and tariffs,” wrote the 191 Democratic members of Congress, citing the Federalist Papers, in their 65-page brief.

Congress has “explicitly and specifically” delegated tariff-raising powers to the president, but not under IEEPA, according to the lawmakers.

“Unmoored from the structural safeguards Congress built into actual tariff statutes, the President’s unlawful ‘emergency’ tariffs under IEEPA have led to chaos and uncertainty,” the lawmakers wrote.

‘Economic chaos,’ price hikes cited

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, co-led the brief with Oregon’s Sen. Ron Wyden, top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also co-led, along with Reps. Gregory Meeks of New York, Joe Neguse of Colorado, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Richard Neal of Massachusetts.

In a statement Wednesday, Shaheen said Trump’s “reckless tariff agenda has caused economic chaos and raised prices for families and businesses across the country at a moment in which the cost of living is far too high.”

“The Trump Administration’s unlawful abuse of emergency powers to impose tariffs ignores that he does not have the authority to unilaterally impose the largest tax increase in decades on Americans. This brief makes clear that IEEPA cannot be used to impose tariffs,” Shaheen said.

May decision

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs in a May 28 decision, following two legal challenges brought by a handful of business owners and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among the states that brought the suit.

The lead business plaintiff is V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based company that imports wine and spirits from 16 countries, according to its website. Other plaintiffs include a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company, and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.

Following an appeal from the White House, the Federal Circuit allowed Trump’s tariffs to remain in place while the case moved forward.

Triple-digit tariff

Trump used IEEPA to declare international trade a national emergency and announced tariffs on nearly every other country on April 2 in what he dubbed as “Liberation Day.”

Tariffs reached staggering levels on major U.S. trading partners, including 46% on Vietnam, 25% on South Korea and 20% on the European Union.

The announcement wiped trillions from markets, which have largely recovered. Trump delayed all but a 10% base tariff for 90 days on every country except China. Trump fueled a trade war with the massive Asian nation, peaking at a 145% tariff rate, but then temporarily settling between 10% and 55%, depending on the good.

Even before Trump shocked the world with his “Liberation Day” announcement, small business owners from around the U.S. told States Newsroom they were bracing for potentially devastating economic effects.

The trade court’s ruling — a pending appeals litigation — does not apply to tariffs Trump imposed under other statutes, including national security-related duties on foreign automobiles, as well as steel and aluminum. Some of the steel tariffs, imposed during Trump’s first term, were left in place under former President Joe Biden.

Charging stations for electric vehicles are essential for cleaning up the transportation sector. A new study by MIT researchers suggests they’re good for business, too.

The study found that, in California, opening a charging station boosted annual spending at each nearby business by an average of about $1,500 in 2019 and about $400 between January 2021 and June 2023. The spending bump amounts to thousands of extra dollars annually for nearby businesses, with the increase particularly pronounced for businesses in underresourced areas.

The study’s authors hope the research paints a more holistic picture of the benefits of EV charging stations, beyond environmental factors.

“These increases are equal to a significant chunk of the cost of installing an EV charger, and I hope this study sheds light on these economic benefits,” says lead author Yunhan Zheng MCP ’21, SM ’21, PhD ’24, a postdoc at the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART). “The findings could also diversify the income stream for charger providers and site hosts, and lead to more informed business models for EV charging stations.”

Zheng’s co-authors on the paper, which was published today in Nature Communications, are David Keith, a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management; Jinhua Zhao, an MIT professor of cities and transportation; and alumni Shenhao Wang MCP ’17, SM ’17, PhD ’20 and Mi Diao MCP ’06, PhD ’10.

Understanding the EV effect

Increasing the number of electric vehicle charging stations is seen as a key prerequisite for the transition to a cleaner, electrified transportation sector. As such, the 2021 U.S. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act committed $7.5 billion to build a national network of public electric vehicle chargers across the U.S.

But a large amount of private investment will also be needed to make charging stations ubiquitous.

“The U.S. is investing a lot in EV chargers and really encouraging EV adoption, but many EV charging providers can’t make enough money at this stage, and getting to profitability is a major challenge,” Zheng says.

EV advocates have long argued that the presence of charging stations brings economic benefits to surrounding communities, but Zheng says previous studies on their impact relied on surveys or were small-scale. Her team of collaborators wanted to make advocates’ claims more empirical.

For their study, the researchers collected data from over 4,000 charging stations in California and 140,000 businesses, relying on anonymized credit and debit card transactions to measure changes in consumer spending. The researchers used data from 2019 through June of 2023, skipping the year 2020 to minimize the impact of the pandemic.

To judge whether charging stations caused customer spending increases, the researchers compared data from businesses within 500 meters of new charging stations before and after their installation. They also analyzed transactions from similar businesses in the same time frame that weren’t near charging stations.

Supercharging nearby businesses

The researchers found that installing a charging station boosted annual spending at nearby establishments by an average of 1.4 percent in 2019 and 0.8 percent from January 2021 to June 2023.

While that might sound like a small amount per business, it amounts to thousands of dollars in overall consumer spending increases. Specifically, those percentages translate to almost $23,000 in cumulative spending increases in 2019 and about $3,400 per year from 2021 through June 2023.

Zheng says the decline in spending increases over the two time periods might be due to a saturation of EV chargers, leading to lower utilization, as well as an overall decrease in spending per business after the Covid-19 pandemic and a reduced number of businesses served by each EV charging station in the second period. Despite this decline, the annual impact of a charging station on all its surrounding businesses would still cover approximately 11.2 percent of the average infrastructure and installation cost of a standard charging station.

Through both time frames, the spending increases were highest for businesses within about a football field’s distance from the new stations. They were also significant for businesses in disadvantaged and low-income areas, as designated by California and the Justice40 Initiative.

“The positive impacts of EV charging stations on businesses are not constrained solely to some high-income neighborhoods,” Wang says. “It highlights the importance for policymakers to develop EV charging stations in marginalized areas, because they not only foster a cleaner environment, but also serve as a catalyst for enhancing economic vitality.”

Zheng believes the findings hold a lesson for charging station developers seeking to improve the profitability of their projects.

“The joint gas station and convenience store business model could also be adopted to EV charging stations,” Zheng says. “Traditionally, many gas stations are affiliated with retail store chains, which enables owners to both sell fuel and attract customers to diversify their revenue stream. EV charging providers could consider a similar approach to internalize the positive impact of EV charging stations.”

Zheng also says the findings could support the creation of new funding models for charging stations, such as multiple businesses sharing the costs of construction so they can all benefit from the added spending.

Those changes could accelerate the creation of charging networks, but Zheng cautions that further research is needed to understand how much the study’s findings can be extrapolated to other areas. She encourages other researchers to study the economic effects of charging stations and hopes future research includes states beyond California and even other countries.

“A huge number of studies have focused on retail sales effects from traditional transportation infrastructure, such as rail and subway stations, bus stops, and street configurations,” Zhao says. “This research provides evidence for an important, emerging piece of transportation infrastructure and shows a consistently positive effect on local businesses, paving the way for future research in this area.”

The research was supported, in part, by the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART) and the Singapore National Research Foundation. Diao was partially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.