Posted on 01/23/2018 7:13:40 PM PST by UMCRevMom@aol.com
President Trump on Monday imposed tariffs of 30 percent on imported solar panel technology in a bid to protect domestic manufacturers while signaling a more aggressive approach toward China.
The move is a major blow for the $28 billion solar industry, which gets about 80 percent of its solar panel products from imports.
The Solar Energy Industries Association predicted the tariffs would increase prices and kill 23,000 jobs. The group represents manufacturers as well as installers, sellers and others in the field.
"While tariffs in this case will not create adequate cell or module manufacturing to meet U.S. demand, or keep foreign-owned Suniva and SolarWorld afloat, they will create a crisis in a part of our economy that has been thriving, which will ultimately cost tens of thousands of hard-working, blue-collar Americans their jobs," Abigail Ross Hopper, the group's president, said in a statement.
Suniva and SolarWorld Americas, the bankrupt companies which requested the tariffs, say tariffs would boost domestic manufacturing and add more than 100,000 jobs.
The tariffs unveiled Monday apply to all imported solar photovoltaic cells and modules, the main technology on panels that convert solar energy into electricity.
While the action is targeted at imports from China, Trump's tariffs apply to all imports, since Chinese manufacturers have moved operations to other countries.
"The president's action makes clear again that the Trump administration will always defend American workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses in this regard," U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in a statement Monday announcing the decision along with a decision to impose tariffs on imported washers. SolarWorld Americas, a unit of a German company, said in a statement that it was grateful for Trump’s work, but it is still reviewing whether the tariffs are high enough. It had sought 50 percent tariffs.
"We are still reviewing these remedies, and are hopeful they will be enough to address the import surge and to rebuild solar manufacturing in the United States," Juergen Stein, the company's CEO, said in a statement.
"We will work with the U.S. government to implement these remedies, including future negotiations, in the strongest way possible to benefit solar manufacturing and its thousands of American workers to ensure that U.S. solar manufacturing is world-class competitive for the long term."
Suniva, meanwhile, cheered the tariffs.
"Over the last 5 years, nearly 30 American solar manufacturers collapsed; today the President is sending a message that American innovation and manufacturing will not be bullied out of existence without a fight," the company said. "This is a step forward for this high-tech solar manufacturing industry we pioneered right here in America."
The move is the first major tariff decision Trump has made unilaterally in office. Through his presidential campaign and his first year in office, Trump repeatedly promised to aggressively go after China and other nations that he feels conduct unfair trade practices and hurt domestic industries.
The new tariff falls to 25 percent after a year, and then 20 percent and 15 percent each year after, before phasing out entirely. The first 2.5 gigawatts of imports each year are exempt.
Solar panels already are subject to significant tariffs when imported from China and Taiwan.
Suniva and SolarWorld Americas requested tariffs of 50 percent on imported panels last year, saying their operations were decimated by cheap imports. The International Trade Commission endorsed tariffs of up to 35 percent after it ruled that domestic manufacturers suffered "serious injury" from the imports, a finding required to impose tariffs under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Most of the rest of the solar industry, including installers and companies that make related technology, oppose the tariffs, saying they would threaten tens of thousands of jobs.
The right-wing R Street Institute said Trump's decision was a disappointing loss for free trade.
“More good-paying jobs will be jeopardized by today’s decision than could possibly be saved by bailing out the bankrupt companies that petitioned for protection," said Clark Packard, trade policy counsel for the group. "Today's decision also will jeopardize the environment by making clean energy sources less affordable."
The tariffs have attracted opposition from numerous corners, including renewable energy industries, environmentalists, free-market advocates, conservative activists and advocates for other energy sources.
The dispute is likely to be settled eventually by the Switzerland-based World Trade Organization (WTO), where China and other countries are nearly certain to challenge the tariffs as a violation of international law.
The provision under which Trump took action has been used rarely, and its tariffs are almost always struck down by the WTO. The last time it was used was in 2001 for steel imports, and the WTO overturned the penalties
Solar Edge is one of those American companies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history
What happened in the 1910s to eclipse the need of the Federal government for tariffs by the 1920s? Are you arguing this became a better situation for the country?
How many states did the US have as of 1920 from when the original 13 colonies to have a tariff were put in place?
What year was slavery ended?
Can you name just two countries who have “free trade” today?
>>>It didn’t take the washing machine companies long to respond to the tariffs. One of them is building a factory as fast as it can, and the other started churning out washing machines in South Carolina
But the SC governor and Mark Sanford oppose the tariff because it also puts a tariff on parts. So fewer washers may be built than what was originally planned.
I'd point out that it was another case of the government meddling in the market and thereby raising costs to US consumers.
...choosing to buy a foreign tariffed good is a personal choice no one must make.
The point is that the tariff artificially raises the cost to the consumer. It makes no difference to me whether I have to pay more for a tariffed foreign washer or pay more for an otherwise uncompetitive domestic washer, the effect is the same.
The government is dictating that I pay above market in order to subsidize a favored industry.
We may all decide that this level of picking winners and losers is warranted, but we shouldn't pretend that it's something it isn't.
Although some of the existing tariffs are due to claimed dumping and other banned practices, the new ones are because the US International Trade Commission ruled that the competition was seriously hurting the domestic producers.
In this instance here was no finding that the foreign competitors did anything wrong.
The terriffs are a disincentive to buy certain foreign made products.
Especially, one’s that could be made in Amwrica?
Kind of the same way the lower mortgage deduction is and a disincentive to cheat other states?
It will improve and get cheaper and then utilities can do large scale solar farms to manage it properly.
...
I think that’s already the case.
Those huge solar collectors out in the boonies fry lots of birds.
...
Those collectors use mirrors. The tariff is on a different kind of technology.
remember when environmentalist didn’t want footprints in the desert. Now we have hundreds of acres of these bright shiny metal things. But that’s apparently ok.
I would contend this is not true for you or anyone else who pays taxes in the US.
Salaries earned in the US, regardless of the competitiveness of the worker, still pay lots of taxes, reducing the tax load you otherwise would have to pay. Also, thise workers are not idled, meaning they aren’t out collecting unemployment or committing crimes to stay afloat.
In our society, in which “tax burdens” are borne primarily by people with jobs, having an able-bodied person not working is a real, tangible cost.
A product “at the same price” from either our country or another is inherently more costly to your life if bought from a foreign country without a tariff in place to compensate.
Fine. But if the government is going to redistribute wealth to take care of those who don't have jobs let's do it more transparently by taxing everyone and allocating the money around openly.
These tariffs are a more complicated means to the same end and they have the effect of distorting the market and favoring certain industries over others.
They're a tax on consumers and the tax receipts go to a certain class of workers through artificially high wages.
In the overall scheme of things, a tariff on solar panels is trivial.
The fact of import is that the action is a shot that will be heard all around the world and number 1 topic of discussion at Davos.
The president has shaped the Davos battlefield to his advantage.
And as an aside....... the announcement from Apple has firmly girded his flanks.
It is equivalent to a national sales tax on only those goods.
What’s not to like a out that? It is a completely legal, demand-based tax that hits foreign good buyers on welfare, earning money “off the table,” and from gainfully-employed persons.
.
Except for off-grid applications, solar panels are feel-good Foo-Foo!
The tariff should be 100% on such novelties, refunded to the user in off-grid applications that are verified.
.
Maybe, but then let me buy the product I want and openly tax me for the difference.
Your approach costs me the same 10% but the cost is hidden in the higher price of goods from subsidized industries.
All I'm advocating for is transparency and to minimize government driven market distortions.
You’ve already been told your Chinese solar cells have a 30% tariff. How many more times must you be told before you understand that?
Chinese workers don’t.
No, the choice is to pay for the tariffed imported good or pay an artificially high price for the domestic one.
I want to pay the market price for the good and the government is preventing that.
Which means that the domestic ones I buy will be 30% higher than the market price.
Thanks for the choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.