U.S. Senator to Obama: Hike Tariffs on Chinese Panels

Comment
1 of 74

John-Bronson

September 8, 2011

It's highly unlikely that the wimpy Obama admin will do anything to combat China's trade practices (primarily, the devaluation of their currency). It's only a matter of time before ALL solar panel manufacturing in the US gets shut down.

Comment
2 of 74

electric38

September 9, 2011

Wrong, wrong, wrong!!

Chinese products that are made for consumer owned rooftop installations are needed badly right now! Plug and play installations should be at every corner hardware store, Lowe's and Home Depot next week. Move solar ink development forward and the accompanying low cost into the American market now!!
American manufacturers that continue to rip off the American public with high pricing and the accompanying price gouging labor need to be shown the door.
Build to suit the current economy - China would do well to flood the American market with products aimed at rooftop solar. Free energy from the sun should be available for low income, senior and the disabled immediately!
Taxes need to be raised from coal, gas and oil industries to subsidize these residents.
Trillions of Gigawatts need to be installed on the roofs of America, aggressive nationwide FIT's need to be implemented now!!

Comment
3 of 74

jim-stack-36988

September 9, 2011

The lowest cost panels in the entire world are made by First Solar with HQ in Tempe AZ. They are turning up a panel manufacturing plant at the old GM proving grouds in Mesa where GM crushed the 999 EV1's they had leased.

SunTeck has a new factory in Goodyear AZ.

If we have incentives with Feed In Tarrif for solar that are higher for panels and inverters made in Stae or at least in Country every solar maker in the world will make their products here. Just check the Washington Steae solar incentive for locally made products.

The USA first made panels at Bell Labs in 1954 and the US had been making some panels ever since. Let's keep being the best and make the best rules to livce and work by.

Comment
4 of 74

John-Bronson

September 9, 2011

jim-stack wrote:

"If we have incentives with Feed In Tarrif for solar that are higher for panels and inverters made in Stae or at least in Country every solar maker in the world will make their products here."

Nah that makes too much sense. Instead we have incentives for products made overseas. "Cash For Clunkers" did a great job stimulating the economy - in Japan.

Comment
5 of 74

ronald-steenblik-74298

September 9, 2011

@Jim Stack,

Subsidies that favor locally made products are being challenged in the WTO and other trade forums. Any company industry that thinks these kinds of policies are going to be around forever, or even for more than a few years, is taking a big risk.

Comment
6 of 74

luciano-munaretto-145745

September 9, 2011

It is strange to invoke WTO as defense of the PV Chinese industry. They received globally 90 billion dollars (45 billions only to the first 6 companies) al loan guarantees from China Development Bank.
Starting from scratch we have now only in the cells manufacturing more than 200 chinese producers compare to the 30 ROW survivors.
All these new producers (see pls the yr of incorporation...) with the Chinese government money have bought the latest technologies and they haven't need to depreciate what was costed nothing.
I was at PV SEC in Hamburg these days: it seems to be in Shanghai and this is not due to the fact that they are better than us from the industrial and marketing point. It only due to the huge of money that they received.
When the WTO, one day, will decide to investigate it will be too late!!!

Comment
7 of 74

ronald-steenblik-74298

September 9, 2011

@Luciano Munaretto,

Did I say anything in defense of China's PV industry? Don't put words into people's mouths.

There are numerous schemes around the world now that provide higher feed-in tariffs for solar- or wind-based electricity depending on the amount of local content. Some even make it an absolute requirement. Several of those policies are now beginning to be challenged. If the challenges prove successful, then there is a good chance that that will have a chilling effect on other countries and sub-nation entities doing the same.

Do you disagree with that assessment?

Comment
8 of 74

luciano-munaretto-145745

September 9, 2011

@Ronald

What I really hope is that, instead to challenge the Domestic Content in the new FITs, someone will pursue a claim against the State Subsidies to PV Chinese industry

Comment
9 of 74

garyrich2000

September 9, 2011

I feel we become hypocrites by urging other countries to implement free trade via lower tariffs and now do the opposite.

Comment
10 of 74

phil-manke-79191

September 9, 2011

If the USA were to honor the people of it's nation instead of the corporations, none of this corporate positioning would be necessary. The Fed wants to pick, or make, big winners because leveraging has always worked for it. Market leverage does not stimulate trust over time. Grant programs stimulate 'applicant players' that soon learn how to get at the rewards offered most easily.
If the end market; the energy, (electric and thermal,) needed by the people, were incentivised, the RE products would be rolling off the shelves from all the world to the users here. The gain would be enjoyed nationally as well as globally. It seems the US does not trust it's own industries, unless they are large subsidized corporations with political feedback, to do what is their will to do.
Simply put, if solar energy were more than the right thing to do, (profitable to the end markets), no incentives for large businesses would be needed. If carbon (burn tec) producers were paying the carbon production costs to the solar end market power users, the solar industries would already be major players in restructuring the energy infrastructure in this country. The US govt has well proven it cannot push a market, it can only draw them with market incentives, and then everyone wins. SREC's and FIT's are the best way to shift the national energy structure to sustainability. Business will take care of business.

Comment
11 of 74

Anonymous

September 9, 2011

In recent weeks this statement from SEIA has been getting some press coverage, including here: "However, a recent report released by GTM Research and SEIA determined that the U.S. was a net solar exporter to China in 2010."

Problem is that much of this was one-time purchases of US made equipment like poly-Si casting furnaces, simulators, lasers, encapsulation lines, etc. That equipment will be pumping out Chinese modules for 5-10 years without needed to be replaced. In fact, this statistic speaks volumes about the dramatic imbalance in manufacturing between the 2 countries. They will be using that equipment for a decade to make low cost modules - to sell to the US.

Comment
12 of 74

ronald-steenblik-74298

September 9, 2011

@Luciano,

Gary Rich puts it succinctly. Countries who are member economies of the WTO agree to abide by its rules. If a country violates those rules, there are remedies to the country or countries that it harms. But punishing somebody else for doing something that you then yourself do is hardly the way to encourage good behavior.

Comment
13 of 74

tim-gard-25916

September 9, 2011

"If you open the US borders by eliminating import tariffs you will hear a big sucking sound as American jobs and business leave town." Gee, ya think??

Comment
14 of 74

sedonix

September 9, 2011

My suggestions as a full time installer are:
1) Ditch most of the red tape involved in permitting solar. I spend more time doing that than the actual installation. It would drop prices to the consumer a lot.
2) Utility companies should invest in PV production facilities and then give modules away to qualified ratepayers instead of paying rebate incentives.

Comment
15 of 74

ronald-steenblik-74298

September 9, 2011

@Tim,

That quote was in relation to NAFTA. The United States has long had low import tariffs on industrial goods. What NAFTA did, mainly, was reduce import tariffs on agricultural products from Mexico and Canada. Look to other reasons for big sucking sounds relating to manufacturing.

Comment
16 of 74

Anonymous

September 9, 2011

So if the US fed or state government gives a loan guarantee to a US company that's good but if Chinese government does the same that's bad? If the US fed puts a tariff on imports that's good but if anyone else puts a tariff on US exports, that's bad? Soup for me, bones for the rest of the world.

Be careful of the law of unintended consequences. Remember when the US government put a tariff on Canadian softwood and impacted US housing starts? Or explain how the US tariff on Brazilian fuel ethanol has in any way reduced the cost of gas at the pumps.

Too many politicians see doing anything to stimulate economic activity as interfering in the free market but measures to inhibit economic activity are seen as way to make the economy better. The theory seems to be that you can lay a beat-down on the free market economy in order to make it better. Is it unfair that some countries have governments with more effective pro-business policies than the US? Probably.

Comment
17 of 74

tomgarven

September 9, 2011

I think a lot of other posters have it about right. Be careful what you wish for but here are some things that could be done to level the playing field.

1. Tariffs might work but only as a tariff which decreases over time. Maybe 10% this year, 8% next year and etc. Solar PV is fast becoming a commodity like coffee and pork bellies.
2. Additional accelerated depreciation and tax deductions for American manufacturers who install more automation. Labor is a very small part of the overall cost of manufacturing when automation is in place. There will be all kinds of jobs available for programmers, maintenance personnel, and design engineers. We can compete because no one in the world is more productive than an American worker when given the tools needed to succeed.
3. Fund additional research into cost reduction methods for both manufacturing and INSTALLATION. Start out by looking at the building codes. It is time for a Federal Code/Law that governs solar installations. All of this patch work city, county and township permitting is nonsense. A permit to install a solar system on a residential dwelling should be $100.00 regardless of where you live. Why pay $2,000 dollars in California for a permit while someone in Arizona pays $200.00. This is just plain nonsense and local government greed.

There are lots of other ideas but my most radical is as follows.

4. Instead of our government providing tax incentives, loan guaranties and other incentives; how about having the government fund a poly silicone manufacturing facility. About a billion dollars per year should cover the cost of manufacturing all the poly silicone we need for American manufacturers. Then we GIVE the manufacturers in American the silicone for FREE. If China can provide all kinds of manufacturing incentives we should certainly be able to do the same. This Federally funded facility would be OPERATED by a consortium of American solar manufacturers.

Out of characters

Comment
18 of 74

Marvin_Hamon_PE

September 9, 2011

Module production is highly automated for the standard flat plate module. Bringing more module manufacturing to the US will not bring that many new jobs.

I think it's more important to the advancement of the solar industry as a whole to bring module prices down. Where those modules come from is less important. Installation is where the jobs are and that can't be outsourced. Cheaper modules mean more installations.

Comment
19 of 74

GeraldR

September 9, 2011

Senator Wyden: is it still okay to import made in China coal power plant components from China?

Here's a thought - if your going to have tariff barriers for solar and ethanol, why not do the same for imported coal and LNG?

Comment
20 of 74

John-Bronson

September 9, 2011

Anonymous wrote:

'So if the US fed or state government gives a loan guarantee to a US company that's good but if Chinese government does the same that's bad? If the US fed puts a tariff on imports that's good but if anyone else puts a tariff on US exports, that's bad?'

The Chinese central bank has been buying billions of dollars/day, for the past 15 years in order to devalue it's currency - that's bad. The OPEC cartel is bad. There are many other examples of why 'Free Trade' does not exist. Perhaps a better label would be 'The World Trade War'.

You would think that with double digit structural unemployment, and 1/2 of US families on food stamps, the US would start firing some shots. Sen. Wyden has the right idea, IMO.

Comment
21 of 74

John-Bronson

September 9, 2011

ronald-steenblik-74298 wrote:

'That quote was in relation to NAFTA. The United States has long had low import tariffs on industrial goods. What NAFTA did, mainly, was reduce import tariffs on agricultural products from Mexico and Canada. Look to other reasons for big sucking sounds relating to manufacturing.'

You are correct. Ross Perot's quote was in relation to NAFTA. It should have been applied to the China trade bill, which was also signed by Clinton.

Comment
22 of 74

ronald-steenblik-74298

September 9, 2011

@John Bronson,

There is no such thing as a China-USA Free Trade Agreement. What President Clinton's administration approved was the conditions for China's accession to the WTO.

Here are the USA's bilateral and regional free-trade agreements in force:

Australia
Bahrain
CAFTA-DR (Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua)
Chile
Israel
Jordan
Morocco
NAFTA (Canada and Mexico)
Oman
Peru
Singapore

The ones with Colombia, Korea, and Panama are pending.

Comment
23 of 74

John-Bronson

September 9, 2011

@ronald-steenblik

There may have been no 'China-USA Free Trade Agreement' (nice strawman), but Clinton did sign a China trade bill.

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-10-10/politics/clinton.china_1_pntr-trade-status-china?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Comment
24 of 74

ronald-steenblik-74298

September 9, 2011

@John Bronson,

Strawman? You're the one who referred to 'the China free trade agreement', not me. Again, I wonder if you appreciate the distinction. What the Senate ratified in 2000 was a bill agreeing to 'normalize' trade relations with China -- i.e., give it most-favored nation (MFN) status, which means treat its goods the same as the USA treats goods from other member economies of the WTO. That is NOT the same as a free-trade agreement, because the USA still applies to Chinese goods those tariffs that it continues to apply on an MFN basis (the same tariffs that it applies to goods imported from, say, the European Union) -- in contrast to the zero tariffs that the USA applies to goods imported from countries with which it has a free trade agreement.

Comment
25 of 74

John-Bronson

September 9, 2011

@ronald-steeblik,

Sorry about that, I went back and fixed it so no one else gets confused.

Comment
26 of 74

roy-browning-155145

September 9, 2011

Chinese companies pay no taxes to china on any items exported. They then receive a 17% "rebate" on a VAT that they don't even pay. This means they can sell for 34% below market and still make a profit.

Also, Several Chinese solar panel manufacturers have recently been caught in a wifely publicized (in China) scam. The company forms a new "Charitable company" with the same directors as the original. The company "donates millions of $ worth of panels and hardware to it's "Charity company" for a write off and a 17% VAT rebate. The Charity company then sells the "donation" far below cost but without invoices so no taxes are paid. These solar panels are then exported to the USA where they are sold at less than competitors prices.

This drives competitors out of the market (successfully) and allows the Chinese companies to then raise prices.

Comment
27 of 74

tim-gard-25916

September 9, 2011

Got it Ronald, thanks. My interest in these matters is very limited. I was doing my best to raise 7 children, and there was little time for politics. Now that I have a bit more time I pay closer attention. Except now I get the feeling of powerlessness. While i was raising my family others were concentrating on confusing the market / country for their own gain while i slept. Rome was not built in a day, but its collapse happened much faster. Do you think we are approaching the end of the American civilization? Lord I hope not ...

Comment
28 of 74

ronald-steenblik-74298

September 10, 2011

@

'Several Chinese solar panel manufacturers have recently been caught in a wifely ... scam'? Sounds salacious! Do you have any more details? :-)

On a more serious note, it would be helpful to other readers if you could provide a web link to your claims about the application of VAT in China.

That manufacturers receive a full rebate on the value-added tax (VAT) of goods that are exported is standard practice everywhere -- i.e., in most of the industrialized world -- that a VAT is applied. But the companies also recuperate VAT on domestic sales, which means that the only tax they end up effectively paying is the difference between what they recuperate and the VAT they pay on inputs. The whole design of the VAT is that its incidence should fall entirely on final consumption.

The way you phrase your allegations is ambiguous: 'Chinese companies pay no taxes to china on any items exported.' [What countries do pay export taxes?] 'They then receive a 17% 'rebate' on a VAT that they don't even pay.'

If they pay no VAT on inputs but still get a full refund as if they had, that would indeed be a subsidy.

'This means they can sell for 34% below market and still make a profit.'

It depends on what you mean by 'market prices'. If you mean world market prices, at most the difference would be 17% (if the companies are not paying VAT on inputs), because all countries that levy VAT give rebates on exports.

Comment
29 of 74

Anonymous

September 10, 2011

The real question is, "In a free market, why would the US choose to buy Chinese panels." It is very likely because the buyers feel that get the most value for their money that way. So the next question becomes, how can US panels give buyers more value for their money compared to China. One ways is to increase quality, the other is to decrease cost. There are costs that are a natural part of manufacturing (does not depend much on geography) and costs imposed by government. If our government wants to help most effectively, it can remove existing costs from manufacturing through reducing regulations (environmental, labor, etc) and taxation, and bureaucratic delays. Adding more complexities, like Tariffs perhaps is avoiding the real problem of cost competitiveness.

Also, when you protect one industry through tariffs that increase costs of that product to other domestic industries, you hurt the customer industries.

When you put tariffs on foreign steel for example, you increase the cost of American products like cars. When you increase the cost of solar panels, you are going to hurts businesses of which solar panels are an integral part, including installers, support electronics, and especially higher level products using solar as a component.

Comment
30 of 74

garyrich2000

September 10, 2011

You may find that the cheap chinese panels don't always perform or last as long as they are supposed to and become an leaching environmental hazard on US soil. This is due to having the fox guard the henhouse or pure negligence.
Don't think it's likely?
Consider the lead and other toxic materials found in Chinese made goods. Also consider the lifetime warranty of products you can't take back because the company is out of business. Where are the health, safety, and economic safeguards against these types of practices?

Comment
31 of 74

John-Bronson

September 10, 2011

Anonymous wrote:

'So the next question becomes, how can US panels give buyers more value for their money compared to China.'

Well, the way China creates value is by having their central bank buy billions of dollars/day with their open market operations. I suppose the Fed could counter that by buying renminbi.

It's a good thing for China that the American public is so stupid that they don't even know what's going on isn't it?

Comment
32 of 74

Anonymous

September 10, 2011

Gary,
To the degree that the problem is poor performance and lifespan, the buyers should know their suppliers. A company that makes poor decisions goes out of business faster. Based on my limited experience, my impression is that those who do business with the Chinese have a very good idea of the quality of the goods they receive. In a way you make this point with the lead in toys. If you and I are aware of this, then how can major toy manufactures not be.

In the case of health and safety, the solution might be product safety standards. If the importer is responsible for the safety of products they import, they have an incentive to buy safe products. If a real danger with solar panels is leaching, then they could be spot tested by the EPA or some other appropriate agency.

If the issue is health and safety, then attack that aspect directly.

Comment
33 of 74

garyrich2000

September 10, 2011

I read a quote posted on one of my previous employers wall that stated, "You are only as good as your last performance". I use this quote to keep myself vigilant of my own actions. Secondly, the toy companies that were exposed by the media for having unsafe product faced embarrasement for their oversight. However, the public has no idea how long this type of neglect went on for. As soon as your back is turned, the risk for consequences goes up. Yes, trust is very critical to success and it is something that earned with the integrity of personal conduct. In economic times like we are in now, emotions run high and decisons go awry.
I suggest combined enforcement and feedback systems for monitoring and self correction. Then pay for this via tariffs and fines. A similar study was done on this type of solution beared positive results for law enforcement. For example, the use of unmanned "Your speed is" radar detectors was found effective in lowering undesireable driving behavoirs. More effective than placing more cops on the road and use of added traffic cameras. The fines parallel the traffic tickets issued and traiffs parallels the taxes collected. As far as an earlier commenter arguing that tariffs hinder economic growth my response is if you have no funds available, there is little or no enforcement.

Comment
34 of 74

phil-manke-79191

September 10, 2011

Useless gossip about the quality of Chinese and other panels is groundless fear.
I find Chinese panels to outperform US made in power levels and durability. One must but a 5 watt higher rated panel domestically to get the same output as some Chinese made. That is not to say they are all the same, there or here. They are, however, certified by an internationally accepted standard, though the good ole USA has interjected the redundant SRCC to elevate the costs to consumers because the importers don't know how to interpret German and Chinese standards, which are, in some cases more understandable in spec, and the easy money for a bogus certifying agency. Ouch!.

Comment
35 of 74

garyrich2000

September 10, 2011

I don't mind if chinese panels are cheaper, safer, more durable and consistently so. If true, I stand corrected. However, I am concerned about buying something that is affordable as well. Prices need to be low enough to minimize the risk of consumers defaulting on a purchase. Now if the Chinese and other emerging economic powers become rich enough and find creative ways to put money back into our pockets to buy products, I'm game.

Comment
36 of 74

Anonymous

September 11, 2011

In my opinion, a severe problem we have is our borrowing. If we buy goods from the rest of the world (i. e. Solar Panels), and they buy treasuries with those dollars, we have a diminished balance of trade (fewer manufacturing jobs). Worse yet, if some of those dollars returned to us to buy our debt are used to buy more imported products, the problems gets compounded.

Perhaps when we borrow imported U. S. dollars, we are preventing them from being spend on U. S. goods and services? How can it be otherwise?

When a dollar that has left the US has returned it can buy:
1. U. S. Debt: (i. e. tresuries ...)
2. U. S. products.
3. Means of production: (Stocks. ...)
4. Real estate and things not mentioned above and anything I forgot above.

If our government lives within its means, then 1 is eliminated (in my opinion a good thing) and 2 - 4 are increased (in my opinion another good thing).

If we buy imported Solar Panels with our dollars, and those dollars return to buy MRIs then that is just the free marked doing what it does best.

Comment
37 of 74

phil-manke-79191

September 11, 2011

I fail to understand thinking that requests other nations to believe in our superiority as you (35,37) seem to. Are not other peoples as entitled to a happy and secure life as we. This idea cannot be circumvented for long, since all peoples must raise in many standards equally over time, or evident conflict is the result.
Because our banking schemes have dominated the other nations economies in the world is not a productive method of commerce enhancement, and is circling around to adjust our own ways and economy. All change can bring good to those who accept it and remain open minded. Resisting "what is" is the cause of all the suffering and conflict in the world.

Comment
38 of 74

tim-gard-25916

September 11, 2011

Phil, I would be interested to see if you lead the life you praise. Are you an American? Have you ever had a medical problem that would have killed you if you lived in another country because their systems were unable to handle it? Have you ever been unfed for several weeks in this country? do you own your own house? your own car? Do you own or watch TV? Do you have a regular job? Have you ever depended on the police for help or protection? have you ever had a hoard of thieves break into your domain and steal everything you own, rape or kill your wife or children because no one would protect them? Have you ever been thrown in jail because you complained about someone in power? If these things are missing from your lifestyle, then I guess you have every reason to complain about what securities my country offers others. And if you contact people in this country and ask for help without demanding they follow your religion, I am sure there are those who would help you. If you have these advantages, then give your own away, but do not expect me to remain silent while you preach giving mine away! That would make you a card carrying Socialist, and i am not impressed. Now, how about we get back to the subject ...

Comment
39 of 74

ron-peterson-82973

September 11, 2011

A value added tax (VAT) will reduce the tax advantage imports have over domestically produced goods and services. In addition, it will help balance the budget. Tariffs can distort the economy by being very high or almost prohibitive (likewise quotas).

Comment
40 of 74

John-Bronson

September 11, 2011

The advantage imports from China have is from their currency manipulation. Some estimate the RMB is 40% undervalued. A VAT, or sales tax will not resolve this issue. Implementing a tariff has caused Japan to revalue in the past, and is probably the best way to get China to let their currency float.

There have been riots in China recently because of their inflation, which is caused by their currency manipulation. Taiwan, Malaysia, and some other Asian countries are also currency manipulators.

Comment
41 of 74

garyrich2000

September 11, 2011

Not sure how high is too high of a VAT.
Curious to know what will be an effective percentage and the ways to adjust the numbers with changing conditions. Perhaps tie it to the Prime Rate the same way credit card companies do to US Consumers?

Comment
42 of 74

ronald-steenblik-74298

September 12, 2011

@Gary Rich,

Wikipedia lists the VAT rates applied around the world. Standard rates vary from 5% (Japan,Taiwan) to 25% (Hungary, Norway, Sweden), with most falling within the range of 12% to 20%. I know of no country that 'adjusts the rates with changing conditions'. Most countries adjust their rates only very occasionally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax#Tax_rates

Comment
43 of 74

garyrich2000

September 12, 2011

If a purchase is made online and shipped directly here, isn't it exempt from VAT's and other taxes?
Perhaps Tariffs are a better solution if adjusted with market variables such as differences in trade balances, GDP, and Deficit figures.
Maybe we wouldn't be doing this if China didn't decide to hoard their rare-earths?
But I understand they may view this mineral resource as a matter of national security.
A good strategy as well, weaken us economically enough during our transition from current energy practices to a more secure one to succeed in retaking Taiwan.

Comment
44 of 74

ronald-steenblik-74298

September 12, 2011

@gary rich

'If a purchase is made online and shipped directly here, isn't it exempt from VAT's and other taxes?'

If you're talking about buying something that is shipped from abroad, normally it will not be subject to VAT by the exporter, but may be charged a sales tax in the United States. It will certainly be charged any applicable tariff once it physically enters the United States.

'Perhaps Tariffs are a better solution if adjusted with market variables such as differences in trade balances, GDP, and Deficit figures.'

The United States, like most other developed countries, has bound most of its most-favored nation (MFN) tariffs at the WTO. When a country binds its tariff, it is not allowed to charge a higher tariff than what it has bound. And no country I know of adjusts their applied tariffs 'with market variables such as differences in trade balances, GDP, and Deficit figures.' It would be considered too arbitrary, and the procedure for getting each change approved (and fighting off challenges) would be extremely costly.

By the way, the United States' MFN tariff on 'Photosensitive semiconductor devices, including photovoltaic cells whether or not assembled in modules or made-up into panels; ...' (HS 8541.40) is zero -- i.e., 0%.

What Sen. Ron Wyden (OR-Dem) is presumably calling for is an investigation by the U.S. government that would lead to the application of temporary remedies (e.g., anti-dumping duties, countervailing duties, or special safeguard mechanisms) that would be specific to Chinese exports of PV cells and modules, not a change in the general tariff.

Comment
45 of 74

garyrich2000

September 13, 2011

I change my mind, tariffs do seem fair and appropriate. Especially considering that the panels made anywhere are primarily automated and require very little labor. As a result,I don't see how the very few who pocket can sustain healthy global trade this way.

Comment
46 of 74

ronald-steenblik-74298

September 13, 2011

@Gary Rich,

Do you really mean that the United States should raise its MFN tariff -- i.e., the one it charges on imports from ALL countries that are also WTO members, except for countries with which the USA has a free-trade agreement (see comment 24) -- on PV cells and modules from 0% to some positive number? If so, how high?

Or are you advocating targeted import duties on imports from China and perhaps one or two other countries that you feel are not "playing fair" (see comment 46)?

Comment
47 of 74

Anonymous

September 13, 2011

Rather than a VAT or Tariff why not consider reducing or removing tax credits and utility rebates for foreign made solar products? That would certainly level the playing field.

And post #3 electric38 - is offensive. The American company is not gouging the consumer nor is the American worker overpaid.

Comment
48 of 74

larryofgalaxy

September 13, 2011

I think what everyone here is missing is the 'elephant in the room'

Capital knows no borders. It flows freely around the world.

With globalization we now have created the Economic Royalists Dream.

The mega rich who control the worlds wealth and thus by default all the rest of us who are not part of this exclusive club,have no concern what so ever concerning which country produces what or who is lowly paid or has a job or not. All that they see is whether or not their balance sheets are positive or negative. Its their life. They live only for this loss or gain.

That is why governments must be structured to keep these predators at bay. We had a Hitler and he proved a tyrant.Stalin was a bad man. King George was defeated by our revolutionaries. There is no difference between a king or lord or dictator or tyrant and any of the excessively wealthy individuals who pull the strings on the worlds' economy.Money is power and power leads to more money. At least until the rabble once again gets out the guillotines.

Only when we begin to recognize these economic truths will we get back to some level of democratic government where the welfare of the citizens as a whole is more important the an economic tyrants ability to put more black on his balance sheet than red.

There is nothing inherently evil about a wealthy person.The wealthy put their pants on the same as the rest of us and should be seen as just another part of the mechanism that creates wealth. Without labor a wealthy man will starve just like the rest of us. So who is more worthy of praise?

Comment
49 of 74

ronald-steenblik-74298

September 13, 2011

@Anonymous (comment 49),

You ask, "Rather than a VAT or Tariff why not consider reducing or removing tax credits and utility rebates for foreign made solar products?"

Because that would invite a WTO challenge as a clear violation of the non-discrimination principle.

Comment
50 of 74

John-Bronson

September 13, 2011

larryofgalaxy wrote:

'The mega rich who control the worlds wealth and thus by default all the rest of us who are not part of this exclusive club,have no concern what so ever concerning which country produces what or who is lowly paid or has a job or not. All that they see is whether or not their balance sheets are positive or negative. Its their life. They live only for this loss or gain.'

But we are part of the club. Consider solar installers that use the cheaper panels made in China. Do you think they're up nights fretting over jobs lost at US panel manufacturers? Or the consumers who got a better price on their panels, do you think they care about the job losses?

In the US, it's everybody for themselves.

Comment
51 of 74

Longwatcher

September 13, 2011

As a US Veteran (retired USAF), who bought Chinese solar panels (Suntech 270 watt) partly funded via stimulus money under ARRA. I can tell you why I got the Chinese panels instead of the American ones. Because on my roof, the Chinese panels would (and are) producing more then the American ones could have. Mostly having to do more with the actual physical size of the panel then anything else. Although it also saved me probably 15-20% overall in costs (a lesser but still important factor). And although always somewhat nervous about anything made in China. The fact one of them went flying off the roof during a hurricane and was tested intact and is now back up on the roof producing power, says a lot about at least that companies panels. I was more disappointed in the American rack system which let it go.

As to toxic leaching. I am trying to figure out, given the materials it is made from, what possibly could leach from the panel at all, much less be toxic.

My understanding is all the toxicity is in the manufacturing. And if China wants to kill off their land (as long as they don't take us with them). I am okay with that. But I suspect the Chinese are starting to care a lot about the environment as they experience more issues actually affecting more then a couple people or a single village.

While I would prefer America to be the one producing the best solar products. we as a country are not even trying. But at least I have reduced the amount of coal, or other fossil fuels we need by ever so small the amount.

That coal by the way is being shipped to guess where...
China. In fact CSX in Newport News is expanding the rail capacity to meet demand from China for coal. So it all balances in its own strange way; although I hope they figure out how to do clean coal, because that will affect us.

Comment
52 of 74

Anonymous

September 13, 2011

Longwatcher...I have been in the PV business for a number of years and have sold US, European and Chinese made products. I can tell you that there are quality mfgs from each but on the whole Chinese products are inferior. However, much of the problem with Chinese or US or European, (cheap brands) will not become apparent to you for 5 or so years. It has to do with material selection and performance degradation which will not show up for a few years. There is a reason they can charge less. Suntech is a decent brand but I can assure you there are plenty of American made product that is equal in quality and some better. As to price...well they are selling at a price that is not sustainable so if they are not careful you could have product from a defunct manufacturer.
But on the whole, American mfgs are better, with a few exceptions.

Comment
53 of 74

larryofgalaxy

September 13, 2011

"In the US, it's everybody for themselves."

You nailed it.

Almost all of the problems we now see as intractable can be directly attributed to this attitude.

Other countries where there is a sense of community and cooperation are doing quite a bit better than we do both socially as well as economically.

We essentially have an ongoing football game where all the players are free to execute any play or move any way they like with no rules other than the iron clad rules laid down by a few leaders on the side lines who make certain that neither side ever really achieves a touchdown where the power of the leaders is diminished.

The chaos generated by the lack of a quarterback or any rules makes the power of the leaders a certainty since the players are too busy killing each other.

Rigged game
Stacked deck
Those who hold the gold make the rules

Comment
54 of 74

garyrich2000

September 13, 2011

@ Ronald
Right now these opnions on which action to take are just initial feelings. However, I'm leaning toward targeted import duties. In retrospect, I remember when our nation debated the effectiveness of taxing imports (During the NAFTA debate) and I chose to support NAFTA. That's why I was suggesting something a little different like tying the tax rate to some kind of variable as a behavior modification tool.
Why I suggested an alternative tarrif method is because of inspired reading of Scientific American?-feedback systems and became convinced this may be a useful tactic.

Comment
55 of 74

tim-gard-25916

September 14, 2011

If a Chinese company walked into your office and offered to front enough money for you to open a company building 'American made' panels, with the intention of opening a manufacturer in each state, with profits going to them for their financial help, who would say no? (Negating material issues for those who immediately thought that). Now remember, the Chinese will be taking cash from the US and depositing it in a Chinese bank. Any thoughts?

Comment
56 of 74

willem-ferguson-112220

September 14, 2011

I hope that the USA and the countries in the North are now feeling what we experience when government-subsidised products from the North are being exported ultra-cheaply to Southern counties, destroying entire industries in the destination countries. The US cannot complain about Chinese competition in the solar market, yet be involved in exactly the same practice as China when it comes to export of steel, agricultural products and many other products to other commodities.

Comment
57 of 74

garyrich2000

September 14, 2011

@Tim_Gard
My inital thoughts were that we are doing exactly that to China. However, I don't know what kind of contracts were agreed upon or if setlements were made as to what is fair.
If the economies of scale for local production outperformed economies of scale for global production plus shipping, etc...
then I'd consider it having potential.

Comment
58 of 74

tim-gard-25916

September 16, 2011

Fire ... wouldn't matter to us? Really. One of the first countries to have a middle class? Dollar sucking middleman? You mean the guy who busts his hump to create something? That middleman? Maybe you prefer Communism? Socialism? Imperialism? Or what? Certainly not capitalism in a Democratic state.

Comment
59 of 74

garyrich2000

September 18, 2011

Fire..... not sure what you mean by end use when it comes to tariffs. Exactly who are you skipping tariffs on? The importers and middlemen? So that it is only imposed on the customer to discourage buying imports? Please clarify.

Comment
60 of 74

john-sotack-156579

September 18, 2011

I think you can almost always find a reason against tariffs. When you make a component of something more expensive, you make the end product more expensive (like a roof top solar installation). You will get less of the end product and all the activities that support it (ie inverters, metering equipment, installation labor). Tariffs try to pick winner and looser industries.

There is an intelligence in the free market that works toward greatest efficiency that extends beyond any one component. People tend to buy more of the best solution (which tends to grow) and less of the inferior solutions, that goes out of business. Ways of doing things get reformed through "Creative Destruction". If an external supplier can to solar panels better on a level playing field than the US, then maybe our talents are best used elsewhere (like developing high tech electronics).

John

Comment
61 of 74

Anonymous

September 18, 2011

A good reason for a tariff would be to force countries that have no environmental standards to step up and protect the environment. One reason they can sell for less is lax controls. What we don't want is to lessen our environmental regulations so that we can compete. I believe that is what the republicans are asking for right now and it would be a huge mistake.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904106704576578442998803296.html

Comment
62 of 74

larryofgalaxy

September 18, 2011

OH OH! 'creative destruction?'
Been reading Thomas Friedman's mindless writings that border on delusional only untill you realize he is a billionaire with everything to gain by keeping folks living the same delusion.

Study a little history for some real facts on tarrifs.
Read Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufacturers. America became a world power because of tarrifs. Not in spite of.

'Freemarket'?
Another 'dog whistle' part of the lexicon developed by the oligarchs who circumvent Democracy and representative governments. So long as there is a working government and anarchy is not the dominant force in control there is no such thing as a free market. Remember 'those who hold the gold make the rules' has never been more relevant than in today's highly manipulated and centrally controlled global markets.

On tarrifs?

Tarrifs can be thought of as a tax if you wish but in reality a well designed tarrif is more of a levelizer. A mechanism created by enlightened societies who recognize that there is in fact no free market and never will be.

So if we charge a tarrif (tax) on a Chinese module we pay more for the moodule. The result will simply be the same module produced in the USA at an equal price.Note I said price. There is cost and then there is price. Even though you as an individual pay a lower price your still paying a higher cost. Who do you think pays the interest on the money borrowed from China to make up the money that would have stayed in our country and created more money. There is no free market and there certainly is no free lunch. Just ask one question and be honest. Since Reagan began the mindless free trade,low tax corporatocracy, has the US benefited economically across a broad range other than the top %1 holding close to %75 of all the wealth while we devolve into a backward third world country. Your answer can reveal a certain level of your own willingness to accept delusions and belief in myths.

Comment
63 of 74

ronald-steenblik-74298

September 18, 2011

Gary (Anonymous comment No. 64) writes that 'A good reason for a tariff would be to force countries that have no environmental standards to step up and protect the environment.' Again, Gary, do you mean a specific tariff on imports from China (i.e., a trade remedy), or to impose a general tariff, or tariffs, of some height?

Since you speak of 'countries' in the plural, I assume you mean the latter. Dream on. WTO jurisprudence has already ruled unilateral attempts to restrict trade on the basis of alleged environmental problems in the exporting country as contrary to its rules. But, setting international law aside, let's look at the practicality of it. Who would decide how high the tariff would be, and on what basis? How often should the tariff be adjusted? Should companies that meet the reference environmental standard have to pay the same tariff as ones from the same country that do not?

Should Norway (a major oil exporter) and Switzerland, which get most of their electricity from clean hydro-electric plants, impose tariffs on U.S.-manufactured goods because the electricity that U.S.-based companies use is generated predominantly by fossil fuels (43.5% from coal and 22.2% from natural gas)? Should Singapore impose high tariffs on imports of U.S. corn because of nutrient pollution in the Gulf of Mexico. (And if it does, does anybody think that will change the amount of fertilizer applied by U.S. farmers?)

And consider differences ACROSS goods. U.S. tariffs are zero on imports of fossil fuels imported from countries with which it has free-trade agreements, and close to zero on imports from other countries. Say we start charging differential tariffs on solar panels according to the environmental performance of the overseas solar manufacturers. If their overall environmental performance is still better than foreign producers of fossil fuels, what sense does that make?

So, we impose a tariff on imported oil. How does that address oil spills in our own back yard?

Comment
64 of 74

john-sotack-156579

September 18, 2011

I think when people are dying of poverty (indequate nutrition, health care, shelter) they are more intested in getting the resources they need for their families to survive and consider things like pollution more secondary. In the case of China, as the people are becoming wealtheir, I think they may be caring more about air quality and other forms of pollution control. (See article link regarding Chinese Village's Protest of PV Manufactures pollution).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904106704576578442998803296.html

I assume in free market there should be monopoly and antitrust protection, and things like environmental protection. More specifically a business should not directly harm other people or their property. What I don't like is pretectionism. I agree that there are aspects with China involving pollution and national security, and for those reasons I am not anti-tariff. However, I do not favor tilting the playing field.

As far as in Economics, I like Nobel Prize winning economist Miltron Freedman's joint work with his wife "Free To Choose". He tends toward liberatarinism, in my opinion and specifically addresses counter arguements to his philosophies. He seems a bit like a modern Adam Smith in terms of free markets.

As far was wealth distribution / redistribution, that is a topic for a purely political website. This forum has gone well beyond renewable energy as it is.

John

Comment
65 of 74

larryofgalaxy

September 18, 2011

Milton Friedman and his Chicago School of Economics (more like a school of economic pirates and fools) was instrumental in Chiles financial collapse and the subsequent theft of resources by international predators. Of course that collapse caused untold death and mayhem. Classic Disaster Capitalism as brilliantly described by Naomi Kline in Shock Doctrine.Simply the natural result of an always failing libertarian cult or as it should be described Neanderthal survival of the fittest (or at least the most amoral and greedy)

Argentina's collapse was also the direct result of more piracy by Freidman's followers. Once they threw out the libertarian fools their economy rebounded quite nicely.

Nothing this man or his followers has ever said was anything but promotion of theft of the commons,and increased wealth of the few on a grand scale. He is as far removed from Adam Smith as any economist could be.

Anyone who compares the two as similar has done little if any real research on either of them.

All you have to know is that Ronald Reagan thought Milton Friedman walked on water. Most if not all of the present economic carnage is the direct result of Friedmans's and Reagan's sycophants who believe in an economic system that for all intents and purposes has as much validity as a workable system of wealth creation, that benefits the majority and not a tiny minority, as one brought about by another narcissistic nit wit who invaded most of Europe and cheered on death in 1939. We all know how well that worked out now don't we?

"Free to Choose"

Sure if your one of the elite few who made the rules in this mythical "free market" utopia.

Just remember that rules and a free market are mutually exclusive. Rules require the rule of law and a means to enforce them and punish those who violate them. Last time I looked that rule of law is spelled Government.

Oh! Forgot. Saint Ronny said Government is the problem. Sure fits as he followed laws only when convenient

Comment
66 of 74

garyrich2000

September 18, 2011

I am suggesting a degree of specific tariffs to remedy various economic practices deemed unfair. How much? I don't know
Across more than one industry? Maybe
Although I am not Anonymous from comment 64, I have expressed similar concerns at other news postings recently (similar topic)
And a remedy similar to that offered by tomgarven (comment 19) is appealing.

Comment
67 of 74

ronald-steenblik-74298

September 19, 2011

@Garyrich2000,

What I am saying is that all these ideas about raising the most favoured nation (MFN) tariff on solar cells and modules from zero to 10% (or whatever), or applying variable import tariffs on all imports that are proportional to some bureaucrat's assessment of the foreign country's environmental performance, are pissing in the wind if they would not fly at the WTO. The only kind of "tariff" that would be allowed (as long as there is supporting evidence and proper procedures are followed) would be one of the agreed WTO remedies: an anti-dumping duty, a countervailing duty, or a special safeguard measure. The latter was recently applied successfully against Chinese tires:

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/145168/Trade/WTO+Appellate+Body+Upholds+Special+Safeguard+Measure+Imposed+By+The+United+States+On+Certain+Chinese+Tires

If, however, you and others are proposing that the USA withdraw from the WTO, then all I can add is "Be careful what you wish for ... ."

P.S., I didn't say you were the same Gary as Anonymous, but the alert I receive that there has been a new comment attributed comment 64 to somebody named "Gary". It even showed a photo of the person!

Comment
68 of 74

phil-manke-79191

September 19, 2011

Import tarriffs benefit only big industries and altho political, do not benefit the general population. Their purpose is to make products imported cost more to the public. That they may have another affect is a "hoped for" periferal benefit only to some. It is like attacking someone for having a better idea than oneself. Petty childishness. Just because they have seemed to work in the past, in escalation of differences, is hardly justification for consideration.

Comment
69 of 74

tim-gard-25916

September 19, 2011

OK Phil. Me and my friends were making electronic coil winding's in Silver Creek NY. We had been doing that here for 40 years, just after WW2. But now, because there is someone who will do it for half the cost in another country, my company closed down. Now me and my boss, the company owner are on the unemployment line. Import tariffs only benefit big industry? Me and my small business boss disagree ... You confuse petty childishness for real angst. Please, comment on this supporting your thought, or agree. Let us know if you are reachable Phil ...

Comment
70 of 74

larryofgalaxy

September 19, 2011

Tim-gard 25916

Do a little checking
I will almost guarantee you that the company that can do it for half is not the company you deal with in this country to buy it. If it is a Chinese company who makes it,most likely it's a sweat shop owned by the Chinese government that was approached by the distribution company you used to sell to. They simply bought from the Chinese and brought the product in to the US with no tarrif's and then sold it for a low enough price that any US competitor (who has not already gone and done the same thing) still left is also put out of business. Once competition is killed off they jack the price to the ceiling. I'm certain this distributor was already extremely wealthy and is incapable of doing the work you did (most stock and bond coupon clippers who make up the wealthy are intellectually challenged since most inherited the wealth they have and have no need for intellect). OF course this is why the top %1 control the vast majority of the wealth in this country. This and the obscene tax codes put in place by the Democrat and Republican corporate whores posing as our representatives.

Anyone remember the story of the golden goose. Remember what happened when the greed got so severe the golden goose was killed off by the very person who benefited most from its golden eggs. Just remember the vast majority of the working class is a golden goose for the coupon clippers (Rethuglicans call them 'job creators'). Once this golden goose is dead (it's on life support now)the coupon clippers will look back and say 'I don't know what happened'. I'm certain Marie Antoinette was voicing the same thing as her head made a loud clunk at the bottom of the basket sitting just beneath that razor sharp guillotine.

Comment
71 of 74

larryofgalaxy

September 19, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/asia/china-shuts-solar-panel-factory-after-anti-pollution-protests.html?_r=3&smid=tw-nytenvironment&seid=auto

Need to say more?

Comment
72 of 74

john-sotack-156579

September 19, 2011

According to the Article Gary sited, they were fined $74,000 and reported $360 million in revenues in the second quarter alone. I calculate the fine to be about 0.02 % of one quarter's revenue.

Based on the article, it appears the Chinese are protesting pollution and getting at least some results. The article mentions:

" followed a much larger demonstration last month in the northeastern city of Dalian against a plant that makes paraxylene, a highly toxic component of polyester products. Government officials promised to relocate the plant after 12,000 residents took to the street."

Comment
73 of 74

John-Bronson

September 19, 2011

phil-manke-79191 wrote:

'Import tarriffs benefit only big industries and altho political, do not benefit the general population. Their purpose is to make products imported cost more to the public. That they may have another affect is a 'hoped for' periferal benefit only to some. It is like attacking someone for having a better idea than oneself. Petty childishness. Just because they have seemed to work in the past, in escalation of differences, is hardly justification for consideration.'

So what do you call buying $1 billion/day of your trading partner's currency in order to prop it up, whilst not allowing your own currency to float? I would call it an unfair trading practice.

And yes, import tariffs, or more specifically - the threat of import tariffs, have worked in the past. Under both the Nixon, and Reagan admins, Japan was threatened with tariffs, which caused them to revalue their currency.

Comment
74 of 74

tim-gard-25916

September 19, 2011

So, import tariffs only serve the rich. If the rich can buy cheaply made things from abroad and make their money while Americans are out of work, then import tariffs are bad? This does not make sense. This is going to be a problem we are all going to have to deal with. If the very wealthy are the only people to control the financial world, then the rest must hope for the best. But from what I see, most in the US are doing OK. Some are even so lazy they sit on their butts collecting from a government that buys their votes with tax money. There are so many things screwed up on this planet i do not understand why in Hells name God lets us survive ... unless of course He knows things we do not ... I have got to get off this post, it is not relevant to the issue posted ...

U.S. Senator to Obama: Hike Tariffs on Chinese Panels

Do you like this news?

REW.com Editors

REW.com's Articles

Recent News

World's #1 Renewable Energy Network