Cameras and tariffs

I do a lot of nature/wildlife shooting personally, and sports shooting professionally. And, yes, it's professional, even if not for ESPN.

I've been waiting to move from the DSLR world to the mirrorless world. In fact, I've had my eyes on one particular model — Canon's R7, priced new at just over $1K on eBay right now.

That said?

I've been waiting for Canon to get its R7 MarkII out the door, to drive down the R7's price.

Supply chain issues — I presume with the stacked sensor that is supposed to be among changes on the MarkII — delayed what was supposed to be a late 2024 launch.

And now, the tariff wars.

Supposedly, second half of 2025 was to be the new goal. But, with the three-month (for now) "pause" by Trump on most non-Chinese tariffs, I'm thinking Canon (and Sony and anybody else with plans for new model releases this year) HAS TO BE thinking about kicking factories in the butt six ways from Sunday to get at least the start of new product out the door in that window.

Since I'm a Canon guy (with toes of one foot in the Nikon world), let's focus on this.

The R7 MarkII is rumored at about $2K, body only. Depending on what all tariffs it would face after that window closes, $2,500 or more, let alone a full $3K, is going to dent initial sales. And yes, per US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Trump has new tariffs planned, before his "pause" expires even, for smartphones and related tech like semiconductors. Cameras will get hit.

And, while the R7 wouldn't fall in my definition of "budget level" mirrorless, and the MarkII certainly wouldn't, budget-level mirrorless (and DSLRs) are made in China. Some camera components are also made there.

That said, since I've called Trump out for it himself, I have to be careful that I'm not sniffing too much of Arthur Schopenhauer's "The World as Will and Idea," and thinking that, if I believe something hard enough, that will make it come true. (Schopenhauer was the predecessor to New Age "manifestation," in a way, as practiced by Marianne Williamson and others. And, sure that she won't run for president a third time, yes, cultists, she does believe in manifestation.)

That that said, I do hope, without believing in manifestation, that I'm right. 

As for going straight for the new? If this rumor about MarkII specs is true, no way I'm paying for a 40M sensor that's also stacked. That puts us at $2,500, not $2,000, without any tariffs. And, getting rid of a mechanical shutter entirely? Not interested in that, unless you find a way to massively increase lifespan.

Heck, I'll take an R10 MarkII if it upgrades enough, and comes out soon enough, and is not much more expensive than a first-gen R7.

I also, per Ken Rockwall, don't like that the R7 doesn't have a pop-up flash, and I'm sure that the MarkII won't.

Give me an R10 MarkII that:

• Keeps the pop-up
• Is a 32.5 sensor, even if not stacked
• Adds in-body image stabilization
• Has a processor upgrade similar to R7 MarkII
• And a few ergonomic tweaks, like moving that AF/MF toggle off the front of the camera, and doesn't put the card slot in the battery door

And I'm good.

I'm better if you get this done sooner rather than later.

Now, what will that run?

So, if an R10 MarkII comes out the same time (let alone sooner) than an R7 MarkII, and has all the above, and is priced at, say, no more than $1,199? I look at it instead of the original R7. 

Part of me wishes I'd considered the Nikon road. But, Ken Rockwall said that Nikon's DSLR  ⇨ mirrorless lens adapter wasn't as good as Canon's. And, for my main telephoto zoom, I saw a lightly used and refurbished Canon 100-400 5.6-8, the non-mirrorless-L series but much more than kit level lens, on eBay and the price was right.

That said, Nikon is behind Canon and way behind Fuji on APS-C mirrorless cameras. Nothing with a sensor bigger than 24meg. Yes, sensor size isn't everything, but for stuff like wildlife photography, it's pretty damned near everything, at least versus blowing money on ever-longer lenses.

Texas Progressives talk Paxton, abortion, more

Off the Kuff has some advice for running against Ken Paxton in the 2026 Senate race. 

SocraticGadfly "eagerly" awaits what will surely be Ken Burns' American exceptionalism version of the American Revolution on PBS.

The Texas GOP's tweaks to abortion law still don't care about women. 

The Barbed Wire has frank advice for anyone who wants to get pregnant in Texas.

El Paso is taking recycled water the next step, with what could be a national first on a direct sewer to tap system. Other areas of Texas need to look at water recycling before the costly, environmentally degradating work of desalinization. (hey also need to look more at conservation. They also, per Cactus Ed Abbey, need to look at growth for growth's sake.

Evil MoPac finishes off its list of 100 fundamental truths about Austin. 

The Eyewall takes a close look at the annual hurricane forecast. 

City of Yes makes the case for single-stair buildings.  

Franklin Strong raises a red alert about a truly terrible anti-library bill.

The Dallas Observer talks to new TDP Chair Kendall Scudder. (And, aside from LGBTQ etc issues, and the fact that Dems should care about the economy and public schools, they don't find out his stance on other issues.)

The real reason Trump's tariffs won't work

And that is, contra his Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, yes, buying a bunch of cheap shit IS, or has become, the American way of life.

It started becoming that 40-plus years ago, when Saint Ronald of Reagan first really signed off on not battling protectionism abroad. That said, the first big wave of modern imports was partially Merikkka shooting itself in the foot. At the time of the two oil crises of the 1970s, American small cards were crap. That was halfway acceptable at the time of the 1973-74 oil crisis and Arab partial embargo; at the time of 1979 and Iran, it absolutely was not.

So, Japan kicked American butts. This was primarily due to Big Three intransigence, but UAW workers were about as much at fault.

Skip backward a bit. 

In some ways, I consider JFK the first neoliberal president, not using that totally vaguely, but seriously and at least somewhat narrowly. If not him, it's definitely Jimmy Carter and I've written about that before.

Ronnie? Not really a neolib; nor Poppy Bush.

The Slickster? Absolutely. If James Earl wasn't full blown as a neoliberal, William Jefferson Clinton surely was. Rhodes Scholarship learning and all.

Remember, it was the Slickster who first touted how "engagement" with China would lead to political liberalization. Not!

Beyond that, at least as much as Carter, Clinton and unions weren't always on the same page. It was honestly, under Clinton, that Democrats first started looking really at the "knowledge class" as a basis for politics.

From there, everybody but Trump has been a neoliberal.

OK, along with that?

It's been 17 years since the last minimum wage hike. And, despite my pleas on these pages, Democrats did NOT attach a COLA provision to that last minimum wage hike. That means, contra Bessent, many Merikkkans can't afford to buy more than cheap shit. That's even as the vulture capitalists riding herd on stocks of retailers don't want it any other way.

Second, despite fishing for union support, and some unions dumb enough to give it to him, Trump cares about unions even less than national-level Democrats. He's fine with trashing out the NLRB. And OSHA and workplace safety. Etc., etc.

Safe American factories paying decent wages of course can't compete with China. And, Trump is not about to dish out a COVID-type stimulus specifically targeting lower-income workers to buy items from American factories, even if he did back an increased minimum wage that would slowly kick in.

Trump's tariffs address one symptom of a far bigger problem that he has even less desire of fixing than do Democrats.

Or alleged Trump librul nutters like Batya Ungar Sargon want to admit:

Just when I think Batya Ungar-Sargon can't get any more stupid, she does!
Pro-worker Trump? Really? As he wants to dismantle OSHA and the NLRB?
Anti-war? Guess your Zionism has blinded you to him bombing the hell out of Yemen, supporting genocide and wanting war with Iran. https://t.co/LHO0YWmv5q

— TheRealSocraticGadfly #GLM #PLM 🍉☢️🌻🌲🇵🇸 (@real_gadfly) April 12, 2025

That's in addition to her Zionist and other stupidities, of course.

This is like Ernst Röhm claiming to be a Nazi lefty the day before the Night of the Long Knives.

A carbon tariff? Really? Hot damn (Update: Maybe hot meh?)

AP Photo, from story below, is from Santos, Brazil.

Call it a tariff, call it a tax. Call it something I've been calling for, for a decade or more.

A global carbon tariff.

It's limited. It's just on global shipping. And, the thresholds are fairly high.

Nonetheless, this is the real deal.  It is indeed a step in the right direction:

“By approving a global fuel standard and greenhouse gas pricing mechanism, the International Maritime Organization took a crucial step to reduce climate impacts from shipping. Member states must now deliver on strengthening the fuel standard over time to more effectively incentivize the sector’s adoption of zero and near-zero fuels, and to ensure a just and equitable energy transition,” said Natacha Stamatiou of the Environmental Defense Fund.

And, it has some additional target areas:

The previous day, delegates approved a proposal to designate an emissions control area in the North-East Atlantic Ocean. Ships traveling through the area will have to abide by more stringent controls on fuels and their engines to reduce pollution. It will cover ships coming into and leave ports in the North Atlantic, such as the United Kingdom, Greenland, France and the Faroe Islands. It will oblige ships from North America, Asia and many other destinations to reduce emissions, said Sian Prior, lead adviser to the Clean Arctic Alliance.

Interesting. 

Here's one loophole of sorts:

One major issue during the meetings was the way the fee would be charged. More than 60 countries entered the negotiations pushing for a simple tax charged per metric ton of emissions. They were led by Pacific island nations, whose very existence is threatened by climate change.

Other countries with sizable maritime fleets — notably China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and South Africa — wanted a credit trading model instead of a fixed levy. Finally, a compromise between the two models was reached. The compromise is in the ambition of the measure, since the fee is not a universal levy on all emissions.

I guess it was necessary, and perhaps can be tweaked in the future. 

And? It was reached outside of the auspices of the UN, and with the US refusing to participate. Here's The Donald and minions:

The United States didn’t participate in the negotiations in London and urged other governments to oppose the emission measures being considered. The Trump administration said it would reject any efforts to impose economic measures against its ships based on emissions or fuel choice, which it said would burden the sector and drive inflation. It threatened possible reciprocal measures if any fees are charged.

Trump would actually be dumb enough to do this. The carbon shipping tariff serves as a de facto tariff on China, since we're a massive importer, and is one allowed under WTO rules, but Trump would be dumb enough to shoot himself in the foot. 

The NYT notes no other country followed the US out the door. Not even China with its massive shipping fleet and massive amount of exporting. So, Trump's attempts to derail this will surely fail:

“The U.S. is just one country and that one country cannot derail this entire process,” said Faig Abbasov, shipping director for Transport and Environment, a European advocacy group that has pushed for measures to clean up the maritime industry. “This will be first binding decision that will force shipping companies to decarbonize and switch to alternative fuels.”

The NYT adds that the fees apply to ships of all countries, no matter where registered or how flagged.

Now, such a tariff has lost some of its bite with the tariff wars started by Trump 1.0, largely continued by Biden, and now escalated by Trump 2.0. It's still better than nothing. 

And, we should also curb our enthusiasm in other ways until this plays out. After all, nearly 15 years ago, the Environmental Defense Fund touting this carbon shipping tariff in the first pull quote was touting how much good carbon cap and trade would do. (And, its economist in the piece was saying that we needed to ultimately change lifestyles.)

Nonetheless, it’s a start. And, since global shipping makes up 3 percent of carbon emissions, nipping it in the bud any little bit helps. A little bit.

And, beyond The Donald, per my piece yesterday, the International Maritime Organization also enacted this tariff even as many hypercapitalists are engaging in ever more climate cynicism.

==

Update, April 28:

Yale Climate Connections has several people who have told them, in essence, "but on the other hand." Let's take a look.

Peter Newman, a professor of sustainability at Australia’s Curtin University, was one of three coordinating lead authors for the transport chapter of the IPCC Working Group III report. In an email, Newman expressed concern about what the chapter referred to as “minimal commitment to new technologies” within the shipping and aviation sectors.

“Most of the people I respect in the international transport space say that the IMO and ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization] are doing as little as possible and are trying to make it look like they are doing a lot,” Newman said. “They have not been funding the kind of R&D that was done on land transport. I think they are not doing nearly enough to help avert a major global climate crisis.”

More than 30 institutions that finance more than 80% of global shipping are signatories to the Poseidon Principles, which call for assessing and disclosing how closely the financial infrastructure of shipping is in line with adopted climate goals. “The setting of a global levy on international shipping’s emissions is a historic event,” said Poseidon Principles chair Michael Parker in a press statement. Acknowledging that the draft IMO agreement is “disappointing to many,” Parker added, “it will set in process a framework and methodology that can be built upon.”

“The shipping sector’s first binding emissions targets are laudable, but not enough to drive needed investments,” said the nonprofit Global Maritime Forum in a statement. “Uncertainties remain, as future revisions may be needed to ensure the zero-emission goals are met. National governments need to step up to bridge the cost difference between fossil and e-fuels, support the development of required infrastructure and fuel production, and ensure that more is done to promote the transition in the Global South.”

Per the rest of the story, modern big-money shipping needs more of a push to get it way from "bunker oil," the heavy fuel oil ships use. 

Biofuel is not an answer, just as ethanol biofuel is not the answer for gasoline.

Ammonia would be better, but has the same issues as, say, natural gas replacing gasoline for cars, or hydrogen — compression and storage.

Not mentioned is the growing, though still small, use of sails with shipping. Also not mentioned is solar power, though where you put them on a container ship, I don't know. On a VLCC oil tanker, ironically, that's not a problem.

Texas DSHS trying to have its Brainworm Bobby cake and eat it too on measles

US measles cases are now over 700, with more than 500 in Texas, and the outbreaks in New Mexico and Oklahoma, and at least part of that now in Kansas, all traceable to Gaines County, Texas. 

And, ugh. DSHS is trying to cozy up to Brainworm Bobby while keeping its distance at the same time. Its latest statement on the outbreak warns about Vitamin A toxicity while saying that a "healthcare provider" can still recommend it as part of "supportive therapy." 

Who's a "healthcare provider"? What is "supportive therapy"? Those are Mack Truck sized loopholes.

Climate realism or climate cynicism?

The New Republic transitions quickly from calling it the former to calling it the latter, businesses and think tanks ditching the baseline idea of the Paris accords and accepting that we're not just going to hit 2C, we're going to hit 3C or more.

It's all about capitalism, even more than TNR shows.

First, Paris was always just aspirational Jell-O, as I wrote at the time. And, two people made sure it would be just that — Xi Jinping and .... Merikkka's Dear Leader. Why? Capitalism.

What does this mean?

First, banksters, hedge funds and others, pivoting from backing decarbonization, which they never really backed, and carbon offsets and other such kabuki theater pretendianism on fighting climate change, to touting investments in air conditioning and other such businesses.

Second, especially as more and more countries eye a selective isolationism or increased efforts at autarky, it means upping the ramparts against climate destruction from outside the doors. And, TNR notes that think tanks as "venerable" as the Council on Foreign Relations are signing off on at least some of this.

This:

The brand of climate cynicism being voiced by the Council on Foreign Relations is more novel. In an essay outlining the founding principles of the Climate Realism Initiative, Varun Sivarum—the program’s director and a former top aide to Biden-era U.S. climate envoy John Kerry—describes a zero-sum, catastrophically climate-changed world where “other countries will single-mindedly prioritize their own interests” and the United States should do the same. Facing climate-fueled mass migration “of at least hundreds of millions of climate refugees [that] could upend the international order, and increasingly grisly natural disasters,” the U.S. “should provide the support it can, cooperate with countries on building resilience capabilities, and protect its borders,” as well as “prepare for global competition for resources and military positioning that is intensifying in the melting Arctic.”

As emissions continue to rise from emerging economies, Sivarum calls on policymakers to treat climate change as a “top national security priority—on the level of averting nuclear war and engaging in great-power competition with China,” working with allies to penalize countries whose emissions continue to rise. Acknowledging that such an approach is “fundamentally unfair,” Sivarum makes the case for an America First climate policy. “Nevertheless, the fact is that foreign emissions are endangering the American homeland,” he argues. “Every tool of the U.S. and allies’ arsenals, spanning diplomatic and economic coercion to military might, should be on the table.”

Donald Trump and his top allies don’t seem to think climate change is real, or that it’s a bad thing. But as the White House threatens to invade Greenland for its minerals and disappears people into Salvadoran prisons, it’s helping to build precisely the kinds of climate resilience that the Council on Foreign Relations—with its roster of Biden and Obama White House alumni—seems to be championing. Bleak as warming projections are, a planet where governments and businesses fight to the death for their own profitable share of a hotter, more chaotic planet is bleaker still.

What it really means is that, as income inequality looks to rise even more in both developed and upper-tier developing nations, is that, within countries, the poor and the precariat will get screwed even more, while being exploited in the name of economic nationalism.

What it means for me personally as far as political activism, is that this remains, or increases, as another reason to say "fuck the Democrats" as well as "fuck the Republicans."