It may be trite to say it, but one of the more powerful parts of our body is our feet.

Alright, I accept the fact that the brain tells the feet what to do, but that doesn't detract from the fact that our movements and decisions on where we choose to live, where we shop and which company is most beneficial for our careers go hand in hand with brain to foot.

I'm talking about real green power, not the energy, but the paper money.

As consumers, we hold considerable sway with how we spend it. Sadly, many of us are more focused on how much we spend rather than where we spend it.

Unlike his predecessor who let America's inflation reach new heights, Donald Trump is now forcing us to confront our choices by limiting our options as he puts his thumb on the trade scale. While limiting options might be seen as counterproductive to free market capitalism, it is consistent with the views of some people who believe that the free market is just a tad too free and needs a bit of realignment.

By threatening to impose significantly higher tariffs on goods imported from China, Canada and Mexico, to say nothing of the second tariff shoe that hasn't as yet dropped for the European Union, the president appears to believe that some short-term pain is worth some long-term gain.

Put simply, in order to rebalance our trade deficits with China, et al. it is necessary for U.S. consumers to tighten their belts and gird their loins for the inevitable price rises that will surely accompany higher import duties. If implemented, these duties will require Americans to make some tough choices among them: postpone some purchases which will lead to an economic slowdown; find cheaper alternatives; alter their lifestyles and habits; or just keep spending and putting more purchases on their credit cards.

Truth is, it's high time Americans realized that the golden era of the new Trump presidency may be just gold plating that covers an uncomfortable reality, that we have spent our way – as a nation and a people - into the Twilight Zone of indebtedness and we've done it at warp speed. Long gone are the days of waiting until we had enough money to buy something expensive or the layaway plan or the Christmas Club account. We don't save Green Stamps anymore. If we want a thousand dollar smartphone, we buy it now.

And those with a planetary sustainability conscience, well, they've bought expensive electric cars without a thought as to the demands for rare earth metals necessary to produce them (the bulk of which come from China) or the strain on our creaking, aging electric grid and the investments needed to modernize it.

Nope. We're new age consumers. We want totally digitalized integrated lives with instantaneous communication and gratification. We want to be green consumers, cost be damned without regard for how those resources are mined or produced or by whom.

We are the ostrich consumer that prefers to ignore the uncomfortable details about those mines, the sweatshops or the oppressed groups that work in them. Consumerism is our new god and has been since the advent of Mastercard, VISA and their siblings. But, and here is a bit of good news … some elements in our society are pushing back at no-conscience consumerism and have been asking the right questions of purveyors of products that are of questionable value or have engineered shorter life cycles.

Will higher import duties help this movement of people convince the rest of us to live more measured existences and force us to ask ourselves, "Is this purchase really necessary"? Do I really need a third car or even a second home in the Bahamas? And will politics play a role in this new revolution of purchasing"?
 
That may already be the case with some products, made by some countries and by some individuals who are constantly in the news these days. I'm speaking of the pushback against Chinese-made electric vehicles that may be the result of that country's internal domestic policies as well as those targeting the maker of electric vehicles (Teslas) made by the world's richest man, for his political support of the American president.

It appears that the sale of Teslas in some world markets, like Denmark, is lagging, and some analysts are thinking that this may be the result of a purposeful political thumb in the eye from some more "enlightened" (read left-leaning or Progressive) consumers against Donald Trump's chief government hatchet man, Elon Musk.

If this is the case in a small country of consumers like Denmark, could it spread to larger markets? If so, will the momentum build for adopting "sustainability" requirements for goods exported to the United States and thereby serve multiple purposes like getting manufacturers to adopt better workplace conditions, use more eco-friendly materials (and packaging) as well as increase the lifespans of certain basic products?

One can only hope that this is the case, and that the world's consumers reach a new level of awareness about the products they buy and choose those that are less harmful to the planet but that still fulfill their roles in making our lives more comfortable and that we no longer ignore the ideology of the manufacturing country (especially when it is undemocratic or autocratic in nature) when considering our purchases.

While there may be downsides to the imposition of high tariffs, there may also be hidden opportunities. We should carefully weigh our options when responding. Let's consider the planet for once instead of pushing the personal pocketbook panic button.

Stephen Helgesen is a retired career U.S. diplomat specializing in international trade who lived and worked in 30 countries for 25 years during the Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, and G.W. Bush Administrations. He is the author of fourteen books, seven of which are on American politics, and he has written over 1,400 articles on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at: stephenhelgesen@gmail.com.