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.

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

Read more

The Environment Protection Agency’s landmark mercury and air toxics standards, announced in December, would reduce pollutants from coal power plants, saving 11,000 lives, prevent 130,000 asthma attacks and avoid 4,700 heart attacks. But Sen. James Inhofe has found the required 30 Senators to bring the rule to a Senate vote.

In an event with FreedomWorks, a participant posed the question to Inhofe (at 27:00): “Can we really trust companies to protect our natural resources without the institution of the EPA?” Inhofe, a climate denier who has attempted to circumvent EPA rules because they lack “science,” did not think anyone has said the EPA doesn’t have a place:

INHOFE: I don’t think anyone has said you want to eliminate the EPA altogether. If you look at the Clean Air regulations they were good. They worked. If you look back to the Bush administration we had the clear skies act that they refused to act on that would have done away with SO2, NOx, mercury, real pollutants. We’re not talking about that. There needs to be some regulation there but the regulation needs to be based on science and theirs is not based on science.

But Inhofe really doesn’t need to look far to find many Republicans who want to “abolish” the EPA. Last year, ThinkProgress spoke to six current and recent GOP lawmakers aiming to end the agency, and Senate Republicans voted to end the EPA by combining it with the Department of Energy, with 15 GOP co-sponsors. And Rep. Stephen Fincher recently said “We must cut the EPA’s legs off.”

And of course, Inhofe has attempted to block coal and oil oversight — the climate denier has claimed there’s no science for it. However, Inhofe’s interests do not lie with the hundreds of thousands of Americans who would benefit from mercury reduction, but with his oil and coal donors.

by Michael D. Lemonick, via Climate Central

The sea ice that blankets the Arctic Ocean each winter peaked in early March this year, as usual, and is now in retreat, en route to its annual minimum extent in September. How low it will go is something scientists worry: Ice reflects lots of sunlight back into space, and when the darker ocean underneath is exposed, more sunlight is absorbed to add to global warming.

That’s the simple version of the story, but things look even worse when you dig into the details. For one thing, all that open water does re-freeze each winter, but it freezes into a relatively thin layer known as seasonal, or first-year ice. Because it’s so thin, first-year ice tends to melt back quickly the following season, giving the ocean a chance to warm things up even more in what National Snow and Ice Data Center director Mark Serreze has called a “death spiral” that could lead to ice-free Arctic summers by 2030.

But it’s worse than that, says a new analysis by scientists at the U.S. Army’s Cold Regions Research Laboratory in Hanover, N.H. “First-year ice is not just thinner, “ said Donald Perovich, lead author of a report in Geophysical Research Letters, in an interview. “We’re also beginning to realize it has other properties.” The most important: New ice is less reflective than old ice, for most of the year, anyway. It absorbs more heat from the Sun, which means it doesn’t just melt faster: It actually speeds up its own melting.

Here’s how it happens, according to Perovich. “Most of the precipitation in the Arctic,” he said, “happens at the end of summer and in the early fall.” When the snow first begins to fall, it builds on the multi-year ice, but disappears onto the patches of open ocean. Those patches eventually freeze, and the snow sticks there as well; it just forms a thinner layer. So for most of the winter, all of the ice, thick and thin, is covered with a brightly reflective blanket. That would be good as far as warming is concerned, except that for most of the winter, the Sun doesn’t rise.

When the Sun finally does rise in spring, it melts the thinner snow first, forming heat-absorbing pools on the surface of the first-year ice. The older ice eventually catches up, forming pools of its own, but since the surface is crumpled, the ponds don’t spread as widely, and they absorb less heat.

In short, the death spiral — where more melting leads to more melting — appears to be even steeper than anyone thought.

Read more

by Richard W. Caperton

Do anti-clean energy senators have any idea what Americans want?  If this morning’s hearing on the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012 is any guide, they don’t.  The truth is that Americans support a clean energy target for this country.  Senators should listen to the American public and pass this bill.

Let’s start at the beginning.  In her opening remarks, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) asked, “To me, the biggest question … is whether American’s really want a CES?”

If that’s the biggest question, then it’s time for the Senate to pass the CES Act, because the American people want more clean energy.

According to the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans think that developing clean energy sources should be a bigger priority than expanding oil and coal production.  This is exactly what a CES would do.  The Energy Information Administration testified today that the Clean Energy Standard Act would lead to increased electricity generation from all low-carbon sources of power including renewables, nuclear, and natural gas.  While the exact mix of those resources is impossible to predict, wind and solar power increase dramatically in every scenario the EIA has analyzed.

That wasn’t the end of Murkowski’s misunderstanding of what the American people want.  She went on to say to the witnesses, “I think this is where the consuming public is coming from: If this is going to save me money, let’s talk about it; if it’s not, let’s not talk about it.”

In fact, that’s not where the consuming public is coming from.  Researchers from Harvard and Yale have found that Americans would be willing to pay an extra $162 per year to get 80 percent of their electricity from clean sources.  Conveniently, that’s exactly what the CES would do, so we know that Senator Murkowski’s presumption about what the public wants is wrong.  It’s also important to remember that while the EIA predicts small electricity rate increases from the CES, CAP’s analysis of state renewable energy standards shows that there’s no evidence that this policies increase rates.

Unfortunately, Senator Murkowski’s thinking is stopping the Senate from passing this common sense legislation that would drive clean our air, help prevent catastrophic climate change, and drive investment that can reinvigorate our economy.

Some senators are siding with the American people, though.  Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), who originally introduced this proposal and is leading the fight for a CES, understands why this bill is critical.  His opening statement is a welcome contrast to Murkowski’s:

Read more

By Scott Mandia via his blog

Help the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) raise money to cover the costs of Dr. Mann’s legal defense as well as other scientists who face similar challenges. To help raise money and reward those that contribute, we have rounded up some cool designs and gifts. CSLDF thanks Nicole Martinez and Lunchbreathwho were kind enough to donate their designs for this fundraiser.

$25 gets you one of our t-shirts. They will be delivered a couple weeks after the fundraiser is over. We will check in with you about which design you want and what size.

$50 gets two of the t-shirts.

$75 gets all three of the t-shirts and our true gratitude.

$150 gets you all three of the t-shirts and a copy of Climate Change: Picturing the Science signed by Joshua Wolfe (www.picturingclimatechange.com)

$300 gets you a hockey stick signed by Mike Mann.

$1000 gets you a 16×20 signed silver gelatin print by Joshua Wolfe.

FOR MORE INFORMATION AND TO GET THESE COOL ITEMS PLEASE VISIT:

http://www.rockethub.com/projects/6884-help-cover-mike-mann-s-legal-bills

* A portion of your donation may be tax deductible. People interested in tax deductible donations should contact CSLDF directly at josh@climatesciencedefensefund.org

–  Scott Mandia is a meteorology professor at Suffolk County Community College who has been teaching meteorology and paleoclimatology courses for 25 years. He and Joshua Wolfe co-founded the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.

Make your voice heard by clicking HERE to submit a favorable comment to the EPA today!

by Jackie Weidman

As of this morning, more than one million comments supporting carbon pollution limits have been submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).    In the first month of the commenting period these statements from families and individuals all over the country declared their support for the EPA’s new standards to cut industrial carbon pollution from power plants.   This is already the largest number of public comments sent to the EPA on any issue, with more expected in the final month of the commenting period, ending June 25.

A broad coalition of clean air, labor, and other progressive organizations – including the Center for American Progress Action Fund – delivered the following statement about the carbon pollution rule:

“Americans broadly support the EPA’s efforts to reduce dangerous air pollution that threatens the health and safety of our children, communities, and wildlife. More than one million Americans have now voiced their support for these important safeguards and called on the EPA and the White House to move forward with the strongest possible standard for new and existing power plants.”

Existing power plants are responsible for adding more than 2 billion tons of carbon and other toxic pollutants into the air each year – nearly 13,000 pounds for every man, woman, and child in the United States.   Carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas that significantly contributes to climate change and threatens the health and safety of Americans.  Climate change increases the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, causing more event-related deaths and injuries.

Next week, on May 24, EPA will conduct public hearings will take place in Chicago and Washington D.C., allowing for more public participation in the rule-making.  As big coal companies spend millions of dollars to weaken these public safeguards, it is increasingly critical that EPA continues to hear from Americans who support reducing carbon pollution from new and existing power plants.

Please join us and more than one million Americans calling for cleaner air.  Make your voice heard by clicking HERE to submit a favorable comment to the EPA today!

Jackie Weidman is a special assistant for energy policy at the Center for American Progress.

By Jessica Goad

Yesterday, the House Natural Resources Committee passed three bills to mandate and encourage oil and gas drilling in the West.  All of the bills throw open more public lands to drilling, mirroring the wishes of the oil lobby, the American Petroleum Institute (API).

Just two days ago, API released a report outlining its political wish list.  It included two provisions about drilling on lands that belong to American taxpayers:

We Are Calling For: The opening of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge – 1002 Area; portions of the Rocky Mountains; lifting of the drilling moratorium in New York, and timely review projects on federal land.

We Are Calling For:  The federal government to increase lease sales and adopt pro-access processes to improve development of U.S. oil and natural gas resources on public lands.

All three of the drilling bills passed by the Natural Resources Committee yesterday seek to open more lands for oil and gas development, increase lease sales, and streamline access — just as API has asked Congress to do:

-  H.R. 4381 from Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO) requires planning for an “all of the above” energy plan on public lands and requires the relevant secretaries to meet a “domestic strategic production objective.”

-  H.R. 4382 from Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) mandates leasing and requires that at least 25 percent of the acres nominated by the oil and gas industry be leased, in essence turning land management decisions over to the industry.

-  H.R. 4383 from Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) would force the Interior Department to issue oil and gas leases within a certain arbitrary time frame, as well as punish citizens for exercising their legal right to protest oil and gas leases.

Not surprisingly, these three members have taken significant campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry. In the 2012 cycle, oil and gas has given Tipton  $44,250; Coffman:  $77,500; and Lamborn:  $31,250.

More light was recently shed on the cozy relationship between members of Congress and the oil and gas industry. A few days ago, emails from a staffer to Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) were released referring to the oil and gas industry as “our partners.”

While the three bills passed yesterday seek to increase access to public lands for energy development, an Interior Department report released on Tuesday shows that the industry already has incredible access.  Not only did the government hold “… three of the top five largest [lease] sales in the agency’s history” last year, but 56 percent of the public lands leased to the oil and gas industry in the lower 48 states were not producing any fossil fuels or being explored.

Jessica Goad is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

It must have been the attack ads criticizing clean energy that caused Republican Rob Hatch to speak up. A 10-year veteran of the wind industry, Hatch, who calls himself a former “Iowa farm boy,” has expanded his wind business to 28 employees.

And now he’s defending his livelihood from the “oil billionaires spending millions of dollars on false smear TV commercials” in a spirited op-ed:

It is difficult to watch these people air their TV ads slapping around the president’s support of my employees’ jobs and ridiculous claims that he created jobs in Mexico and China.

The president kept our doors open and our employees working because of the wind-production tax credit and 1603 Treasury grant program.

And we were able to keep jobs in Iowa. The majority of the people I employ here in Alta are either farm kids or still working on the family farm in the evening. Today, the school district in Alta receives somewhere between 16 percent and 20 percent of its revenue from wind turbines. And almost 30 percent of the taxes paid into the county are off wind turbines.

Wind is an American success story in Iowa.

With 2,900 turbines in Iowa providing 20% of the state’s electricity, creating more than 215 businesses, 6,000 jobs, and helping spur more than $14.46 million in annual lease payments to farmers and other landowners, wind has been a major driver of economic activity. And that activity is benefiting business owners like Hatch:

I can tell you that I’m not reaping massive profits like the oil billionaires funding these ads with their billions in subsidies and tax breaks. Right now my wife and I are living invoice to invoice, praying we have enough money to make payroll every two weeks. I have missed Christmas concerts, wedding anniversaries and school plays and sacrificed so much more to keep my business going.

These economic success stories have been well documented. They involve people like Nathan Crawford, a wind technician based in Fraklin County, Iowa, who we visited in December:

A round-up of the top climate and energy news. Please post other links below.

Countries which agreed to sign a deal in 2015 to cut greenhouse gas emissions should set milestones this year to ensure the necessary work is done on time, the United Nations’ climate chief said on Wednesday. [Reuters]

The growing number of electric vehicle drivers in Los Angeles are behaving differently from the national norm. [Los Angeles Times]

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) wants to hear from two Cabinet officials — Commerce Secretary John Bryson and Energy Secretary Steven Chu — as part of an investigation into the Energy Department’s loan program. [The Hill]

A multifaceted air and ground-based scientific field campaign is underway in the Central and Southern U.S., with about 275 scientists, pilots, and technicians out to solve meteorological mysteries about how thunderstorms affect the chemistry of the upper atmosphere. [Climate Central]

Divisions have again emerged on the first few days of the latest round of international climate change talks in Bonn, with the EU and groups of developing countries clashing over the future of the controversial Kyoto protocol. [Guardian]

President Dilma Rousseff is facing one of the defining moments of her presidency as pressure builds on her to veto a bill that would open vast protected areas of forests to ranching and farming, potentially reversing Brazil’s major gains in slowing Amazon deforestation. [New York Times]

IBM’s Ehningen Innovation Center campus in Germany is about to become ground zero for the development of an advanced personal transportation system that combines Hertz’s car sharing know-how with distributed renewable energy, electric vehicles and smart microgrid technology. [TPM]

Funding cuts to squeezed local authorities are putting the UK’s carbon targets at risk, the government’s climate advisers warned in a report published on Thursday. [Guardian]