You have to give Amy Chan credit for her honesty, even if it is politically unwise.

The public figures who know they’re supposed to support Donald Trump’s tariff regime have struggled to promulgate a rationale for the president’s global trade war that resonates with voters outside their ideologically homogenous social circles. Trump himself isn’t helping matters. To hear him tell it, the impetus for Trump’s tariff regime changes from day to day, as does what they’re designed to achieve.

Trump’s more enterprising defenders have done their best to sell the tariffs to average Americans in myriad ways. Still, the more savvy among them understand that Trump’s most recent defense of his trade preferences — Americans will be better served in the long run by having fewer dolls and pencils (by which he means consumer goods, broadly) — is a political stink bomb. It is, however, the truth, and truth-telling is its own virtue.

Trump deserves credit for his honesty. So, too, do those who support his policies but don’t labor under the delusion that they’re clever enough to convince their audiences of happy falsehoods. That’s why we have to hand it to Amy Chan and her publishers at the Wall Street Journal.

“The Trump administration is no champion of green policies,” the chief sustainability officer at the University of California, Berkeley, admitted. “But if you care about emissions, overconsumption and waste, there’s a case for optimism.” In sum, Trump’s tariffs will put inorganic pressure on consumers to pare back their purchases and live with less, thus contributing to a global economic contraction that will hurt everyone. But it’s not all bad; the reduced global productivity will be great for the environment.

“The effect won’t be limited to cheap goods,” Chan continued in eager anticipation. “Higher prices on electronics, appliances and vehicles will encourage consumers to extend the life of what they already own. The greenest car isn’t a new electric vehicle; it’s the one you don’t replace.”

There you have it. As Chan imagines it, Trump’s tariffs will have one profoundly salutary effect: They will make us all poorer in some form or fashion. You will have less because you will be able to afford less. You will not be able to replace broken or obsolete goods. You will produce fewer things because fewer people will be able to buy them.

All this is only desirable if you believe production and consumption and the results of these activities — increased individual happiness, more time to devote to other pursuits, or even the ability to save more discretionary income — contribute to environmental degradation. Indeed, only if you believe that the compelling power of the state can mitigate ecological damage, as opposed to market forces and consumer choices, would you endorse this proposition.

Of course, these are all fallacies born of a motivated economic ignorance and fueled by deference to climatological activism that borders on religiosity. It is a faith, which is why it dovetails so nicely with Donald Trump’s devotional 40-year commitment to tariffs. At least, you have to give Chan credit for her honesty, even if it is politically unwise. These days, integrity like that is in short supply.