Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Department Of Commerce Slaps Large Tariffs On Chinese Solar Modules

Posted on  

"Department Of Commerce Slaps Large Tariffs On Chinese Solar Modules"

Share:

google plus icon

In a long-awaited decision, the U.S. Commerce Department has issued a preliminary decision to apply tariffs to Chinese-made solar modules being imported into the U.S. The tariffs range from 31 percent to 250 percent.

The preliminary tariffs were issued after a lengthy investigation by the Commerce Department into whether Chinese companies are “dumping” solar panels into the U.S. market below cost. These tariffs follow a March decision to issue small countervailing duties on Chinese module producers that are getting illegal domestic subsidies, according to Commerce.

Today’s issued tariffs are as follows: Trina, 31.14 percent; Suntech, 31.22 percent; and 31.18 percent for all other Chinese producers that participated in the investigation. For companies that did not participate, Commerce has slapped a massive preliminary tariff of 249.96 percent.

The combination of these new tariffs and the countervailing duties will add substantial cost to imported Chinese solar panels. With panel prices hovering in the $1 per watt range, it could add around 30 cents a watt to each panel for leading producers, and vastly more for producers that didn’t get involved in Commerce’s investigation.

These are preliminary fines and can be negotiated and changed before Commerce makes a final decision. The solar industry’s trade group, the Solar Energy Industries Association, has called on the U.S. and Chinese governments to negotiate a settlement — potentially resulting in more moderate tariffs:

“The solar industry calls upon the U.S. and Chinese governments to immediately work together towards a mutually-satisfactory resolution of the growing trade conflict within the solar industry.  While trade remedy proceedings are basic principles of the rules-based global trading system, so too are collaboration and negotiations.

“Importantly, disputes within one segment of the industry affect the entire solar supply chain–and these broad implications must be recognized.  In addition, the U.S. solar manufacturing base goes well beyond solar cell and module production and includes billions of dollars of recent investments into the production of polysilicon, polymers, and solar manufacturing equipment, products which are largely destined for export.  If the U.S.-China solar trade disputes continue to escalate, it will jeopardize these U.S. investments.

“Given these broader implications, it is imperative that the U.S., China, and other players in the dynamic global marketplace work constructively to avert or resolve trade disputes that will ultimately hurt consumers and businesses throughout the solar value chain.”

The solar industry has been on edge since last October, when the manufacturer SolarWorld and six other anonymous companies issued a complaint about illegal trade practices. They argued that China’s subsidies were allowing companies to dump panels below cost, thus driving U.S.-based manufacturers out of business.

However, downstream developers have enjoyed falling panel prices — a factor that has allowed the industry to expand 109% in 2011. A group of solar companies known as the Coalition for American Solar Energy has been staunchly opposed to tariffs, saying they’ll dramatically drive up the cost of solar installations in the U.S.

Update

CAP’s Analyst for China Energy and Climate Policy issued a statement on trade enforcement:

As expected, the antidumping tariffs are much higher than the subsidy tariffs announced in March. One reason for that difference is the fact that the Chinese market is not transparent. When China’s local government officials support local enterprises, that support is often off the books, and that makes it very hard for Commerce Department investigators to identify and measure exactly what type and level of subsidy Chinese companies are receiving. This is precisely why the World Trade Organization includes a second-stage determination, on dumping practices, specifically designed to address nonmarket economies such as China’s.

The Chinese government will no doubt respond negatively to this announcement. They may even threaten to take retaliatory action against U.S. companies. If so, Washington must respond with a steady hand. If China wants to negotiate, the United States should be ready to listen. If China tries to force the U.S. government to back down in this dispute by threatening U.S. companies, however, that is not negotiation. Backing down to those threats would be capitulation, and capitulation is a losing game. Just as we cannot allow powerful corporations to bully and harass citizens who file legal complaints against them, we cannot allow China to bully and harass U.S. companies over trade complaints.

If China wants to contest these numbers, they should follow the U.S. example and do so according to the law and within the framework of our mutually agreed trade institutions. At the recent Strategic and Economic Dialogue meetings in Beijing, Chinese leaders promised to follow global trade rules and support rather than undermine the rules-based global trading system. Now the world will be watching to see if they uphold that promise.

« »

46 Responses to Department Of Commerce Slaps Large Tariffs On Chinese Solar Modules

  1. SecularAnimist says:

    Thanks, Commerce Department, for making the solar panels that I planned to install on my house this year unaffordable. You are doing a great job of killing America’s solar energy boom before it even gets started. I’m sure the Koch Brothers are happy.

    • Norm Nason says:

      This trade case is about one thing and one thing only: are Chinese solar trade practices illegal? This ruling determined that they are indeed illegal.

    • GreenITGuy says:

      My thoughts exactly. After using up 50% of my available roof space with the premium priced panels of 4 years ago, I was looking forward to completing my residential system with today’s more affordable components. Now it will have to wait another year or two. Our country is not doing well.

    • Mike 22 says:

      SA, so panel prices go up thirty cents per watt, adding $1500 to a 5 kw system, before the federal tax credit of 30%, and whatever your state may have, that ruins it for you?

      I have my eye on some more PV, but it’s made in the US. I like that.

  2. John Tucker says:

    Kinda unfortunate they did it now. After the bankruptcies and exceptions to the stimulus for non American products they allowed.

    And then to make it so high in some cases.

    It seems like no one is at the helm giving priority and valuing clean energy technology for what it achieves (including nuclear) in this administration.

    This is kinda a financial afterthought to the issue. I hope the monies collected go to some kind of clean energy development.

    • John Tucker says:

      Regardless of negative perspectives, considering the sized of the clean install realistically needed and trade deficit issues, this had to happen. It needs to happen with wind and nuclear technology as well. Construction materials probably also (which can be produced here much more cleanly).

      Nothing against the Chinese of course – they have enough on their plate anyway and dont need us trying to forever reduce a deficit with them by selling them cheap coal and natural gas.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      There is someone at the helm, and his administration is utilising any opportunity to sabotage renewables, while turning on the ‘charm’ when after votes, and promising the Moon. In this world, in this bitter age, one can never be too cynical.

  3. Mark Shapiro says:

    This is an important, and we have been following the pros and cons for a while.

    However, for advocates of clean energy, and PV in particular, there are three developments that are MUCH more important than proposed, temporary tariffs:

    1) Integrating PV into rooftops (BIPV). This is non-trivial, but very do-able, engineering. There are many, many ways it can be done, and a few companies have taken a shot, but their is yet no entrepreneur looking for synergies and connecting the PV industry to the building industry.

    2) Integrating the low-voltage DC from PV with the low-voltage DC requirements of electronic equipment, LED lighting, and local battery storage. This would lower the cost of BIPV and raise the value.

    3) Integrating large-scale PV with electric car battery charging. Thankfully, huge firms like IBM and Hertz (see the May 17 News about 6 posts down) and start-up Project Better Place are working on this. NOTE: This integration uses EV battery to solve — or take advantage of — the intermittency of solar. Another win-win.

    All three if these require serious engineering and business thinking. But with PV at $1/Watt, these “problems” are actually opportunities that simply did not exist before.

    PV at $1/Watt is staring us in the face and laughing at us. What are we waiting for?

  4. Mark Shapiro says:

    PV at $1/Watt reminds me of Howard, the grizzled gold prospector in “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre”, played by Walter Huston.

    Just as Dobbs and Curtin are about to give up and turn back, Howard breaks out laughing, cackling and dancing. The treasure is right there, under their tired feet, and they just don’t see it.

    PV is here. The sun is shining. One dollar per watt. (Too bad I’m not Howard.)

  5. Mark Shapiro says:

    Keep your eyes on the prize. This tariff is a sideshow. It is proposed, it is negotiable, it is temporary, and it adds $0.31/Watt to Chinese panels, if and when it takes effect.

    PV at $1/Watt is here to stay — and improve. Our job is to figure out how to take advantage of this wonderful, bountiful, clean energy gift.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      Quite so, and all the development, construction and maintenance of these new systems will be inside the USA and any other state that seizes the opportunity. The Chinese will make a little money out of cheap production and will, one trusts, work on new applications at home, and for export to less currently technologically able states than the USA. Unfortunately the great, big, obese fly in this ointment is the fossil fuel behemoth, which will never give up the trillions in future profits of mining, drilling and burning their toxic product. They, their bought and owned politicians and bureaucrats and the psychologically and morally challenged propagandists in their MSM will move heaven and earth to delay the takeup of renewable for just as long as money power and moral corruption can ensure.

  6. From Peru says:

    There is a thing I don’t understand:

    Why the price of PV energy is given in $/Watt and not in $/Kwh?

    Watt is a measure of power, not energy. A mesure of energy relevant for the energy market is the Kwh(kilowatt-hour):

    1 Watt = 1 Joule/second
    1 Kwh = 1 Watt*3600seconds

    Could someone tell me the answer?

    • From Peru says:

      Correction:

      1 Kwh = 1 KILOwatt*3600 seconds

    • Mark Shapiro says:

      Important question. BOTH are important.

      $/Watt (power) is simple and direct. It is simply the cost of the panel divided by its peak output in watts. Panels themselves are $1/Watt, and installed costs range from $3-8/Watt. (The costs of all power plants are in $/Watt, but usually it is $Billions/gigawatt).

      $/KWH (energy, just like you buy it from your electric utility) is the LCOE — “levelized cost of electricity.” The LCOE is estimated using: the cost of the panels, a cost of capital (interest rate), the lifetime of the panels, and insolation (amount of sun hitting the panels).

      Thus the LCOE goes down as panel prices and interest rates go down, and as the assumed lifetime and insolation go up. The LCOE for a panel in the desert is thus less than half the LCOE for the same panel in Seattle.

    • Mark Shapiro says:

      By the way, the answer to your question suggests why PV has such value today. Both the price of the panels ($1/Watt) and interest rates are very low right now, so the LCOE of PV is at an all-time low.

      It also suggests that every homebuilder in the desert Southwest should be offering built-in PV. Today.

      It also suggests that if electronics manufacturers had a DC standard power option, PV would be more valuable still. You could use the DC from your PV directly, rather than convert it to AC and back to DC

  7. Mark Shapiro says:

    Many of us clean energy advocates have been watching PV technology since the panels cost about $50/Watt. We wondered if PV would –or could — ever be competitive. A few people talked about BOS costs, and BIPV and other PV integration strategies and tactics, but relatively little engineering effort went into it.

    Now PV is $1/Watt, and BOS and integration are the only issues left.

    If some group starts building PV into houses, AND if electronics manufacturers bring us a DC standard option, PV will take off faster than smartphones.

    • M Tucker says:

      Thanks Mark. I appreciated the explanation and I wholeheartedly agree that desert dwellers should install PV and homebuilders should at least offer a solar package. Actually I think it should be a solar/wind hybrid but I am not in the business and my opinion comes from what I have read. The new homes of the 21st century should be as self-sufficient as possible. Not only should they be well insulated but they need to provide the energy necessary for modern living. That is just a part of my radical ideas that residents in the west, and especially the southwest, should adopt and if I were blessed with a large income I would be actively planning a demonstration home. But it is not just the western US that should consider energy independence. Today there are whole neighborhoods that suffer frequent, several times a month, interruptions of electrical service due to an aging grid causing $1000 in losses and a great deal of inconvenience.

  8. Merrelyn Emery says:

    It’s the mindset behind all this that bothers me. If someone suddenly discovered how to pull huge quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere or oceans, would the WTO ban it because it broke some rule of the ‘free’ enterprise system or interefered with ‘letting the market rule’? ME

    • Sasparilla says:

      The mindset is that the US government is protecting US manufacturers of solar cells (remember we invented them here) from government funded Chinese solar cell producers dumping their panels here in the U.S. below cost to put the US manufacturers out of business (which they have been doing) so they can have 100% of the market (this is a business tactic they use – ask the former rare earths industry).

      Its important to realize the Chinese were not in this industry in the US in a large scale until the last couple of years literally. The Chinese government provided their Solar manufacturers with over $300 billion (yeah with a b) in subsidies in 2010 alone according to the Department of Energy, goodness knows what it was in 2011 or this year.

      Previously the Chinese government had subsidized the rare earths industry in China and it dumped all other producers out of business in the world, then raised outside China prices by more than a factor of 10 (that would be equivalent to them raising solar panel prices to more than $10/watt). We don’t need to give them total control of our future solar panel supply.

      The other important thing to keep in mind is that the largest Chinese solar producers cooperated and prices will only go up to $1.3 watt from $1.00. Not a big deal in the end.

      • Merrelyn Emery says:

        Sasparilla, your answer exemplifies my concern – it is all about competition and money as the planet burns around us. It sounds just like the international negotiations on emissions reductions.

        If it was invented in the US, wouldn’t it have been nice if you had exported it to the world at large, at a subsidized price? The USA would then be remembered for something positive rather than having, and agressively using, the largest war machine in human history, ME

      • quokka says:

        If that $300 billion figure for 2010 alone is correct, that would represent a subsidy of about $4.45 per watt of the world’s total installed PV capacity at the end of 2011 (reported to be 67.4 GWp by Wikipedia).

        If it is correct, it makes a mockery of claims of $1 per watt cost for PV.

        As usual, when it comes to PV, one has to be very wary of cost claims.

        • quokka says:

          $300 billion does not sound right. China has about 35 nuclear reactors under construction. At < $2 billion pr GWe, that's something like $70 billion cost – over a number of years. $300 billion subsidy for PV panel manufacturers in one year looks distinctly excessive.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      The WTO has been used many times by mega-corporations, often aided by the morally insane regimes in their home states, to attack and reverse environmental, public health and social welfare measures in victim states, where those measures threaten corporate profit maximisation. The WTO, in my opinion, is about the most pernicious and dangerous Western dominated instrument of elite global rule going around-and there is considerable competition for that distinction.

  9. fj says:

    It’s on the books that every dollar spent mitigating climate change now is worth at least $4 (400% return) a number of years from now so it should be quite clear that financial instruments can be structured around this differential.

    And, these would be extremely secure investments not only directly but considering the whole system complete with all externalities; and a far cry from high-risk fantasy instruments like derivatives and credit default swaps.

    The financial industry keeps telling us about the value they provide. Now it’s time to prove it here and now by financing renewables, large scale efficiency improvements, and the future of civilization.

  10. RobS says:

    Well haven’t the anti renewable crowd scored a win today, now not only are the rebates for fossil fuels ten times the size of those for renewables but now they’ve gone the other way and are actually applying a penalty tariff to increase the cost of solar energy. How about a tariff on middle eastern oil to reflect the costs of the middle east conflicts and the thousands of lives lost securing the oil supply routes. Or how about a tariff on coal to reflect the fact that US coal miners and coal plant operators have a life expectancy 18 years less then the US average. How about penalising the things that actually do us damage.

  11. fj says:

    There’s been a lot of excitement in New York City about CitiBank funding the new bikeshare system with $41 million over 5 years, which is a true net zero transit system; a miniscule amount considering both the bank’s revenues and what the city pays for transit and equivalent to a measly 34 subway cars, or about 7 per year, in a legacy system continually underfunded with cost overruns and service not even close to being distributed and on-demand; and, at substantial risk of being shut down for a month or more by the next major climate event greatly impacting the city’s $4 billion per day economic activity, real-estate values, etc.

    • fj says:

      That is, when will the financial geniuses start providing real value to a system that really needs it instead of high risk paper shuffling that builds nothing at best except a very few very high net worth individuals, and the coincident worst, risks financial collapse and business as usual with nothing to mitigate accelerating climate change.

  12. Raul M. says:

    US at Rio?
    Hopeful that we will do much to address the climate initiatives?
    Will show the world and ourselves our can do attitude?
    Meanwhile, solar panels are amazing devices and it is up to the purchaser to purchase.
    Solar panels in hurricane areas can make the difference of AC or not. Hot and muggy or dry and cool. The panels don’t just back up during outages but may add throughout the year. Duh, value added not just a backup taking up space.

    • Raul M. says:

      Perhaps the Us delegation will still be given a small table somewhere at the climate talks.

  13. Leif says:

    No one above appears to be relating to the lifespan of the solar panels and the value of home grown. I am 71 and installed my solar array last year. No way will I recoup my investment in my life. The panels I voted for have been government stress tested to 60 years with zero failure rate. The first thing I looked for was the lifespan of the panels with many having a significant loss of production in as little as 20 to 25 years. The second thing was local , Washington, products if possible and mine were assembled just up the road about 50 miles. That made my sale. My primary motivation for going solar was a political statement and supporting the American Green Awakening Economy. With my production credits, (higher for Wash. products), I pay for all my home electricity, heat, gas for hot water and cooking, and gas for my small car and modest driving each year and some change. The production credits will expire in 8 years but odds are me to. The important thing to remember was my effort helped lower the cost to you fence sitters 4-6% in one year. Far more than the $0.31 cost of China products. I changed the dippers on one of the installers. That is local.

    • Raul M. says:

      Congrats Leif,
      I had never thought of solar as being on the bucket list per say but man what a charm to have your own power plant at home. No loud noise, smoke,or fuss just fine power.

    • John Tucker says:

      “No way will I recoup my investment in my life”

      Thats not necessarily true. Especially if a carbon price is approved and incentives. You need to be more optimistic.

      You get less efficiency where you are but if you are not using AC you have much less demand.

      I was looking at the testing for solar products a bit ago and over half the units submitted it seemed didn’t meet minimum specifications to last 20 years. Thats important to look for.

      • Leif says:

        I have faith in the value of the Solar, Having survived a stroke last summer, it is me I am pessimistic about. I have however improved my survival outlook there as well but one must be realistic. There are a lot more behind me than in front anymore.

        The first part of my life was focused on efficiency, resulting in my summer electricity costs ~<$30/month and winter with heat, ~$100/m. That made my Solar PV smaller, i.e. more bang for the buck.

        Last, I will receive ~9+% RoI, show me where you can do that on Wall Street, assuming you are not an inside trader.

        • Mark Shapiro says:

          1) Hang in there, Leif.

          2) That 9% ROI is tax-free. Important detail.

          3) Thanks for installing PV, and thanks for your many comments here.

  14. Pagodroma says:

    So, the US refuses to be a part of international efforts via UN to bring energy efficient technology to developing countries. China in reality subsidises all consumers by investing Bn in solar panel industry. Have it ever occurred to you that Chinese solar panels are sold to other countries than the US? Sometimes I think you should remember that the US is 5 % of the world, not The World….

  15. Steve says:

    I’m curious (if anyone knows) — do genuine climate activists such as Gore, Hansen, and McKibben have an opinion on a topic such as this?

    The Obama administration and CAP are taking a policy stance contrary to the Coalition for American Solar Energy… which indicates conflict in opinion by Americans themselves on the American economic interests concern here, or the “patriotism”/made-in-America angle (which I think should be a subordinate concern anyway).

    I join those who are not losing sleep over below-cost, foreign-government assistance in helping US citizens adapt to increasing conventional energy costs while also reducing US contributions to planetary CO2 headcount.

    I don’t buy all the rhetoric about shutting the US — as a country — out of the solar panel/module/cell manufacturing business. If we wanted or needed to do so, the US government could do what it did in WWII — fully subsidize the manufacture of solar panels and even GIVE them to US citizens. China has no monopoly on the technology (and US universities WILL continue to advance the technology whether they sell their know-how to foreign or US companies).

    This seems to be about adherence to so-called fair trade “principles” (which are much more political and slippery than is being acknowledged) and the protection of a few “US” corporations (so their owners can realize greater stock price appreciation). I think we look like hypocrits, we insult the Chinese, and we dampen the efforts to “deploy, deploy, deploy….”

    I also tend to suspect the net US job impact will be negative by making it more difficult for installers and financiers to remain profitable.

    Finally, the impact upon the subtext of climate activism messaging is a big negative here. I mean, how can climate change be a “planetary emergency” if we are voicing concern over THIS particular trade practice? If Honda, Nissan, and Toyota gave Japanese-government subsidized rebates to US consumers who buy their hybrids and electric cars, would we be outraged?

    I’m sorry. I honestly don’t get the messaging strategy here. It is the same problem I had with concern over oil and gasoline prices impacting US travel, as though that were a BAD thing.

    • Joe Romm says:

      I know this might surprise you, but there is no “messaging strategy” here, just a clear statement of what the author believes. You seem to take this benign view of China that they are dumping out of a benevolence for humanity. Not! Indeed, the fact that they continue to build coal plants at the rapacious rate they do is evidence that their actions are not driven in the least by a desire to reduce emissions at the lowest possible cost with cheap solar.

      The way that China practices mercantalism is that they drive all the competitors out and then use their market dominance to extract maximal profits, which is to say that if one is concerned about addressing global warming and thus concerned about continuing the steady price drop in solar, losing the US (and other world) manufacturing industry is not a good outcome.

  16. Steve says:

    This is not so much about Mr. Lacey’s article itself (I tend to agree with Mr. Lacey on most topics), but relates back to Ms. Gordon’s position articulated the other day and the CAP policy statement tagged onto the end of this article. But the problem is that there is no conscious “messaging strategy” here, which is why I focused on the subtext — the subtle, inherent message whether intended or not — of giving so much screen-time to this issue while trying to also proclaim there IS a climate crisis with the need to deploy, deploy, deploy ASAP.

    You are inferring an evil Chinese intent and speculating about long-term objectives and achievable effects. I am not assuming anything about Chinese intent — good or bad — and am focusing about the immediate domestic effect on US solar deployment and US installation jobs (regardless of what “China” is trying to do). I don’t see the Chinese cornering the solar market given US involvement in developing this and related technologies and the minimal barriers to entry, now or later. US companies are only happy if they make a ton of money anyway, which is why US companies manufacture overseas. Americans prefer to license the IP and build the high-end equipment for manufacturing… and then just trade paper on exchanges at large profits. (As for American corporate “loyalties” to Americans, witness the recent management defections from FirstSolar once word was out that stock prices would likely fall, and did, thus gutting stock option valuations.)

    There are countless reasons why the Chinese will not be able to freely jack up prices unreasonably even if they do “corner” production. One is inter-company competition (these Chinese companies compete for attention on US exchanges), two is antitrust price-fixing penalties where there is an impact on US consumers, and three is competition from natural gas, oil, coal, and all of the other emerging renewables.

    • Joe Romm says:

      Not inferring, merely observing how they operate.

      • Steve says:

        Maybe so, maybe not. But take note of your priorities in this exchange… are you an international trade attorney (with German company clients such as SolarWorld which spearheaded this complaint to Commerce through its US subsidiary) or are you a climate activist?

        • Joe Romm says:

          If you were to think about it, you might realize how silly your comment is. For the record, if one is achieving low cost by dumping, then by definition one isn’t actually achieving low cost in a scalable or sustainable fashion.

          • Steve says:

            Almost all businesses and industries start out with below-cost pricing to get market share and product acceptance, then increase prices to what market conditions allow.

            Remember, this is an international battle between renewables (hoping to reach parity) and the vested interests of coal, natural gas, and oil. The more panels that go up, the less dependence on conventional energy. Indeed, unlike conventional energy, the owner of panels is no longer dependent (for, say, 25 years) on the supplier of those panels. The “dependence” is on free sunlight, not natural resource extractors. We are utterly dependent on Big Coal and Big Oil, like it or not.

            I’m not saying Chinese prices might not come back up at some point. I’m saying I’m not worried about that in the big scheme of things, and I doubt Japanese, German, Italian, and US panel manufacturers will be squeezed out of re-entry when that happens. We’re probably only talking about old-style PV manufacture anyway, which will probably become obsolete soon because of some invention at MIT, Harvard, Princeton, or the University of Michigan which US venture capitalists will run with.

            I am saying US companies in the sector are benefitting right now from Chinese policy, like it or not. And I have my foreign-made panels on my house (backed by a US installer’s warranty, which were mounted by who otherwise would have been unemployed former construction workers and electricians) and I have my Japanese hybrid in the driveway (which has been there long before Detroit thought it fashionable to make them).

          • Steve says:

            Actually, I don’t know if the Chinese corporations themselves are operating at an (unsustainable) loss or not…

            They are able to “dump” product allegedly below-cost because they are getting government handouts, something we don’t do as well in this sector as they do (we do it all the time elsewhere though — cheap credit from the Fed, Big Oil subsidies, and Big Agriculture, to name a few).

            So… maybe prices will stay low for a long time (hear, hear) because the Chinese see this as a way of keeping lower-class citizens gainfully employed…. better than unemployment checks or food stamps.

            Maybe too they are dumping excess inventory which is better off installed and productive than sitting in a warehouse. A lot of obsolete and excess inventory gets “dumped” at below cost. Consumers usually don’t riot in the streets over that.

          • Joe Romm says:

            But again, in any scenario, these aren’t “true” price reductions and so doing something about the dumping does not undermine climate action in the least.

          • Pagodroma says:

            I stand by Steve here, Joe R has cornered himself in a myopic US position. If the US really was interested in solar panels, why not use some of the +400 Bn U$ that are planned to be spent on the new, almost flyable, JSF 35 to subsidise the industry. After all, it is a planetary emergency, or??