Slashdot Mirror


Trump Administration Approves Tariffs of 30 Percent On Imported Solar Panels (axios.com)

The Trump administration just approved tariffs of 30% on imported solar panels. Axios explains why it matters: "Most of the American solar industry has opposed tariffs on panels, saying they would raise prices and hurt the sector. A small group of solar panel manufacturers argued -- successfully -- that an influx of cheap imports, largely from China or Chinese-owned companies, was hurting domestic manufacturing. It's also part of President Trump's broader trade agenda against China." From the report: The tariffs would last for four years and decline in increments of 5% from 30%: 25%, 20% and finally 15% in the fourth year. The tariffs are lower than the 35% the U.S. International Trade Commission had initially recommended last year, per Bloomberg. This is actually the third, and broadest, set of tariffs the U.S. government has issued on solar imports in recent years. The Obama administration issued two earlier rounds of tariffs on a narrower set of imports. Monday's action also imposed import tariffs on washing machines, a much lower profile issue than solar energy.

30 of 445 comments (clear)

  1. TRUMP'S GONNA KILL US ALL!! AGAIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    1. Re: TRUMP'S GONNA KILL US ALL!! AGAIN! by kenh · · Score: 3, Funny

      How many times does Trump have to literally extinguish all life on planet earth before you fools listen?

      You literally have no idea what the word 'literally' means, do you?

      Assuming you still live on planet earth, I don't think he has even once 'literally' extinguished all life on the planet...

      --
      Ken
  2. Not sure if this is good or not by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Cheap Chinese panels were probably going to kill local production. OTOH those cheap panels were getting us off dirty fossil fuels. But OTOOH the reason those Chinese panels are cheap is they don't have much in the way of labor law or environmental regulations. But OTOOOH I don't expect to see much in the way of other tariffs (This one was easy to get through because the coal lobby got Trump elected).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Not sure if this is good or not by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The American manufacturers aren't going to come in and sell them at the lower price. All that's being done is lower the demand after raising the prices. This is going to put a lot more people who were installing the panels out of work than the number of people who ever going to be employed making them. There are 10,000s people in the US working to install panels and that work can't be outsourced to any other country. Who cares where the panels come from? The cheaper they are, the more projects (residential and industrial) will become viable and started meaning more people employed.

  3. Not the first administration to take action. by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Obama administration also accused China of cheating on solar panels via government subsidies; and tariffs were tacked on as punishment. As I understand it, the World Trade Organization agreed that China cheated, but disagreed with the US's remedy.

    While I cannot stand Trump in general, he is sometimes right about trade and visa workers. Just because you are an idiot does not mean you are always wrong. Go 15% of Trump!

  4. Spiraling retaliation ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Informative

    Although economists disagree by how much, the consensus view among economists and economic historians is that "The passage of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression.

    The act raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Spiraling retaliation ... by Powercntrl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Although economists disagree by how much, the consensus view among economists and economic historians is that "The passage of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression.

      The problem with import tariffs is that they're a burden on the many, for the benefit of the few. I don't know about you, but my source of income will in no way increase due to more American workers building solar panels or washing machines, here in the USA. The only thing I'll notice is a higher price at the store on those items.

      Since this is such a great idea, why doesn't the Trump administration just go ahead and tariff the fuck out of imported everything? I'm sure the MAGA crowd will absolutely love it when that South Korean-made TV they were eyeballing for the Superbowl costs twice as much (along with just about everything else at Walmart).

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  5. Re:Remember kids: Tarrifs and subsidies are evil! by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    TFS explains right there, in the summary, that this is the third round of tariffs after Obama's two... but the Trump trolls keep on rolling. No Trump fan, here, but the Trump derangement is sad, especially from supposedly educated slashdotters.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  6. Re:Hail trump!!!! USA USA USA!!!! by saloomy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fuck that. It's a boon to the oil and coal industry. Solar panels just went up by 30%, slowing down our energy independence. We could have moved so much more energy production on-shore. Who cares where manufacturing happens except the manufacturers? Are we going to impose the same 30% tariff on imported coal-mining equipment?

    Fuck that.

  7. Remember the 59% Chinese tariff already in effect. by Mspangler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It applies to US produced polysilicon shipped over there.

    The Chinese want a monopoly on PV panels and the entire supply chain, and to that end anything goes. Daqo gets free electricity for one example.

  8. Re:TRUMP'S GONNA KILL US ALL!! AGAIN! by jwhyche · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't know, how many times has Trump extinguished all life on this planet? Can you give us some hard numbers? i've search google for it and I've come up with nothing.

    Why don't you get back to us with some hard numbers on this.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  9. Re:Hail trump!!!! USA USA USA!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What about American solar panel manufacturers? God forbid the Chinese have the same worker and environmental protections as the US to increase their costs of production. But it's easy to claim moral superiority on the climate when you export your pollution to cheap Chinese labor and unregulated industry.

  10. Success as cost of goods is not good economics. by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is awful. basically you are now subsidising local less efficient manufacturing. Everyone loses, less panels will be installed, you may maintain a few manufacturing jobs but they should be offset by the reduction in retail and installer jobs you will lose by increasing costs by 30%.

    The problem with modern economic theory is that it doesn't measure success in the right way. It's all about money coming into or out of a country, of the cost of goods, and the cost to manufacture.

    Nowhere in those theories is the human cost taken into effect.

    In the modern theories, it's always better when you have lower costs, even if those costs result in fewer people being employed. You can have lots of low cost products available, and yet no one can afford to purchase them because no one has the money to spare - employment is so low that no disposable cash drives the economy.

    The original argument for Chinese manufacturing was exactly that: Shoes become $1 cheaper and 100 workers lose employment, but the total savings across the country of people purchasing shoes more than compensates for the loss of 100 salaries. Overall, it's better for everyone.

    Do you see the flaw in the theory yet?

    When you say "maintain a few manufacturing jobs but offset by loss of installed jobs" you are making the same argument.

    It measures success as the cost of goods, and nothing else, without taking into account other aspects of the economy.

    A successful economy depends on people having money, to drive the economy.

  11. Re:Hail trump!!!! USA USA USA!!!! by jwhyche · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I care where the manufacturing happens. The Chinese are very far behind on their environmental regulations, not mention worker rights. Also this move will help our energy independence than hinder it. We we just keep importing cheap panels from China we become dependent on them. This will make domestic panels more cost effective and actually speed up our energy independence.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  12. Re:Hail trump!!!! USA USA USA!!!! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What about American solar panel manufacturers?

    This ensures that American solar panel manufacturers will be shielded from competition, face no pressure to innovate, and fall even further behind in the world market.

    Just more corporate welfare, at the expense of American families, and one more field where America has given up even trying to lead. So much for MAGA.

  13. Re:Hail trump!!!! USA USA USA!!!! by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Tariffs only make sense if the Chinese government is subsidizing their solar panel manufacturing to the extent that those companies are essentially dumping.

    Otherwise, if Chinese manufacturers can produce panels more efficiently than U.S. manufacturers, its in our best interest to import panels and focus our efforts to areas where we're more efficient. Being able to manufacture solar panels has nowhere near the impact on energy independence as does producing ones own fossil fuels. Existing panels don't suddenly stop working if we stop trading with China.

  14. Re: Success as cost of goods is not good economics by orlanz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What you are talking about has been tried many times in the past and has always come out behind the current systems.

    The objective should never be to "employ the maximum number of people". That is the intended side effect; not objective. There are many failed and current states that tried to make that an objective. India, Russia, Poland, a few South American countries, a few African countries, etc.

    "Modern economics" was built upon these many many lessons learned over centuries. I wouldn't dismiss them so lightly. Given a few considerations, scope, and boundaries, there are slightly better models than today. But, as shitty as our models are, they are far better than the ones before.

  15. Re:Hail trump!!!! USA USA USA!!!! by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So how does that view fit in with the fact that the tariffs will reduce to elimination over the next 4 years?

    Sounds to me that it's an opportunity for american manufacturing to get their feet before competition resumes, and nothing else.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  16. If it's OK there, Why not here? by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just ask yourself a Question.

    Could you build a plant, and operate it here following the same environmental and safety regulations used in China?

    The answer is obviously no. Why? Because those working conditions and environmental practices would be condemned as immoral and an affront to the environment.

    So, why then do people seem to think it suddenly becomes moral and OK to have those conditions in a place 3,000 miles away? If it's Not OK here, then it's not OK there. Or, visa versa. If it's good enough for the Chinese, then it's good enough for Jersey.

    People may think it's good to have cheap solar cells, but unless you can make them cheap in a way that squares with the rhetoric of the labor and environmental movements, then cheap solar cells are not viable.

    Interestingly, saying that they should make these in those conditions in a foreign land seems to actually be racists.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:If it's OK there, Why not here? by grahamsz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, and a lot of us would have felt very differently if it were a tariff on imports from businesses who don't meet our standards for social or environmental responsibility.

      However that's not what this is. You can still run a textile plant in China and dump your dye-laded waste water directly into a river with no treatment; you can have people exposed to repetitive stress injury building phone parts; you can have people working in metal stamping facilities where a wrong move could cost them one of their limbs.

      This is a direct targeted attack on sustainable energy.

    2. Re:If it's OK there, Why not here? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No to mention the fact that half the time he'll contradict himself by saying the exact opposite thing 24 hours later.

  17. Re:Hail trump!!!! USA USA USA!!!! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So how does that view fit in with the fact that the tariffs will reduce to elimination over the next 4 years?

    Because once corporate welfare is in place, it becomes politically impossible to remove it. The companies receiving the subsidies will have more money for lobbying, while the (far more numerous) companies hurt by the tariffs will have less to spend or will go out of business.

    Sounds to me that it's an opportunity for american manufacturing to get their feet before competition resumes, and nothing else.

    This is the classical justification for protectionism: That it is only "temporary" while we "learn to compete". But that never works because companies don't become stronger by being coddled.

  18. Re:Hail trump!!!! USA USA USA!!!! by jwhyche · · Score: 5, Interesting

    China has a habit of doing just that. Subsidizing their industries and dumping cheap products on the world at the expense of other economies. The have done this in the past with cheap steel. Make no mistake, the Chinese are purely looking after Chinese interest. I, personally can't find any fault with this logic.

    There is a difference between efficiently produced panels and cheap panels. Cheap panels will have a shorter lifespan than say more quality produced panels. So to replace a cheaper panels as they wear out will require the manufacturing of more panels. Solar panels are not with out a environmental cost, that is most evident in the manufacturing phase.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  19. Re:Hail trump!!!! USA USA USA!!!! by deathguppie · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Back in the day the British did this with the tea trade. Only British owned ships could transport to Britain. By the mid 1840's they were getting owned by cheaper, faster American shipping worldwide. In 1850 they were forced to open shipping up to other countries to force British shippers to get with the times and compete.

    If you expect protected American companies to be able to compete on the world stage you are delusional at best. American companies have risen to the competition in the past and were in the process of doing so before this happened. Now we have an artificially created short supply on panels. I don't see this helping anyone, especially America

    --
    once more into the breach
  20. Re: Solyndra by kenh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Solyndra was simply a textbook horrible business plan from beginning to end:

    Built fragile, complex solar panels, in a heavily automated factory, on some of the most expensive land inte world, paying some of the highest wages and taxes, that sold at a premium that way exceeded the slight performance boost their curved design provided over plain, flat Chinese imports.

    Their plan was so obviously horrible that when they applied for a half-billion dollars the analysts could predict, to the month, when Solyndra would go bankrupt - so they denied their federally-secured loan application.

    Then the company 'liberally' donated to President Obama's campaign, theirloan application was approved, and then, as if by magic, Solyndra went bankrupt EXACTLY when the previous administration's analysts predicted!

    Amazing!

    --
    Ken
  21. Re:TRUMP'S GONNA KILL US ALL!! AGAIN! by jwhyche · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well I would be more worried if you did take me seriously here. I think it's fairly obvious to every one but a few, and you, that I'm being sarcastic.

    So did you ever apologize for that homophobic comment you made?

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  22. Re: Hail trump!!!! USA USA USA!!!! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Subsidies? Tarrifs aren't distributed to domestic manufacturers, they are taxes, added to the federal budget.

    Wrong. These are protective tariffs. They are being put in place to make imports prohibitively expensive, so few if any will be imported. So no "tax" will be collected. This allows domestic manufacturers to raise prices beyond the market price.

    So the net effect is:
    1. People are required by law to pay more for solar panels.
    2. This extra money goes to corporations that did nothing to earn it.

    This is corporate welfare, pure and simple. Corporate welfare is stupid when it is used for something like ethanol subsidies, which at least in principle are an improvement over burning fossil fuels. But this is EVEN STUPIDER since it will DISCOURAGE solar installations, and result in more FFs being burned.

    I can't believe anyone with a brain thinks this is a good idea. In the short run we spend more on fossil fuels. In the long run, we make our solar industry even more uncompetitive.

  23. Sure, but why pick on Solar Panels? by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Practically everything is made in China these days. But the Trump regime is singling out solar panels. Gee, wonder why?

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  24. Re:Hail trump!!!! USA USA USA!!!! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Has there ever been a corporate or citizen's welfare program that has not been dropped as soon as the political tides turn in the US

    Absolutely. Oil subsidies and tax breaks have persisted for decades through Democratic and Republican administrations. Same for tobacco subsidies, sugar subsidies, corn ethanol subsidies, etc. The mohair subsidy persisted for more than 70 years after it became completely pointless in 1945. The carried interest tax break for investment bankers famously just survived in Trump's big tax reform, despite his repeated promises during the campaign to eliminate it.

    I could go on, and on, and on.

    It is much harder to find the opposite: An example of corporate welfare that was actually ended.

  25. Re: Success as cost of goods is not good economics by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On the other hand Japan is very successful, the world's third largest economy. It's still normal to employ people out of school until retirement there, and they tend to employ what the west would consider an excess of staff but which they consider assets.

    In fact, companies that treat workers the way many western companies do, especially US companies in at-will states, are called "black companies" in Japan. They are regarded as basically scams, get-rich-quick schemes for their owners that you would avoid working for.

    That all works for the Japanese because they are Japanese with a Japanese culture and society which are radically different than most other Western nations. It's the same sort of disconnect when comparing socialist Norwegian nation's economies, healthcare systems, etc, to the US. Totally different societies and cultures. Apples & oranges.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.