SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
'Trade Rules Trump Climate': WTO Deals Blow to India's Solar Program
Providing local green jobs no match for US challenge using powerful trade rules
Feb 25, 2016
In an outcome described as an outrage and a blow for local green jobs, the World Trade Organization ruled Wednesday in favor of the United States in its challenge to India's rapidly growing solar energy program.
It marks "a step in the wrong direction, away from the climate progress that the global community committed to achieving in December's Paris climate agreement," according to Ilana Solomon, director of the Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program.
The U.S. initiated its challenge to part of India's National Solar Mission in Feb. 2013. The problem, as the U.S. saw it, was part of India's National Solar Mission, requiring solar power developers to use solar cells and modules made in India rather than in the U.S. or another country. The WTO dispute settlement panel agreed with the U.S. that this locally-favoring requirement is "inconsistent" with and "not justified" by WTO rules.
India's solar mission also meant losses in profits for the United States. As the office of the U.S. trade representative stated following the ruling, "Since India enacted these domestic content requirements in 2011, U.S. solar exports to India have fallen by over 90 percent."
In addition, as Solomon and Ben Beachy, senior policy advisor with Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program, write,
Though India argued that the program helps the country to meet its climate commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the WTO rejected that argument. Indeed, the ruling boldly states that domestic policies seen as violating WTO rules cannot be justified on the basis that they fulfill UNFCCC or other international climate commitments. In effect, the WTO has officially asserted that antiquated trade rules trump climate imperatives.
The ruling sparked a similar reaction from Bill Waren, senior trade analyst at Friends of the Earth. "The government of India reasonably provided some preferences for local solar energy producers to convert from a carbon economy to a green economy. The WTO decision, finding India's solar energy program a violation of international trade law, is an outrage. Trade law trumps the Paris climate accord," he stated.
For its part, the Obama administration welcomed the WTO decision as a "victory" and said it sent a warning shot.
"This is an important outcome, not just as it applies to this case, but for the message it sends to other countries considering discriminatory 'localization' policies," U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said in a statement.
Froman and environmental groups agree that the ruling is of particular importance in light of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact, which President Obama is pushing Congress to approve.
"This win underscores not just how aggressive and successful the Obama Administration has been in terms of enforcing our current trade agreements, but also the resolve with which we will enforce the high standards negotiated in TPP, whether it's with regard to labor, intellectual property rights or the environment," Froman stated.
However, the Sierra Club says that the WTO decision should warn lawmakers to reject the TPP.
"Indeed," Beachy and Solomon write, "the text of the controversial deal replicates the rules that the WTO used against India's solar program today. While many in Congress oppose the TPP, we could see even more trade cases against clean energy initiatives if the deal were to pass. Congress should view this ruling as further confirmation that a vote against the TPP is a vote for green jobs and climate action."
The Calcutta Telegraph reports that India will likely appeal the ruling, which it has 60 days to do.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
climate actionclimate changeenvironmentfriends of the earthgreen economyindiaobama administrationparis agreementrenewable energysierra clubtpptradetrade rulestrans-pacific partnershipunfcccunited stateswtoworld trade organization
In an outcome described as an outrage and a blow for local green jobs, the World Trade Organization ruled Wednesday in favor of the United States in its challenge to India's rapidly growing solar energy program.
It marks "a step in the wrong direction, away from the climate progress that the global community committed to achieving in December's Paris climate agreement," according to Ilana Solomon, director of the Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program.
The U.S. initiated its challenge to part of India's National Solar Mission in Feb. 2013. The problem, as the U.S. saw it, was part of India's National Solar Mission, requiring solar power developers to use solar cells and modules made in India rather than in the U.S. or another country. The WTO dispute settlement panel agreed with the U.S. that this locally-favoring requirement is "inconsistent" with and "not justified" by WTO rules.
India's solar mission also meant losses in profits for the United States. As the office of the U.S. trade representative stated following the ruling, "Since India enacted these domestic content requirements in 2011, U.S. solar exports to India have fallen by over 90 percent."
In addition, as Solomon and Ben Beachy, senior policy advisor with Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program, write,
Though India argued that the program helps the country to meet its climate commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the WTO rejected that argument. Indeed, the ruling boldly states that domestic policies seen as violating WTO rules cannot be justified on the basis that they fulfill UNFCCC or other international climate commitments. In effect, the WTO has officially asserted that antiquated trade rules trump climate imperatives.
The ruling sparked a similar reaction from Bill Waren, senior trade analyst at Friends of the Earth. "The government of India reasonably provided some preferences for local solar energy producers to convert from a carbon economy to a green economy. The WTO decision, finding India's solar energy program a violation of international trade law, is an outrage. Trade law trumps the Paris climate accord," he stated.
For its part, the Obama administration welcomed the WTO decision as a "victory" and said it sent a warning shot.
"This is an important outcome, not just as it applies to this case, but for the message it sends to other countries considering discriminatory 'localization' policies," U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said in a statement.
Froman and environmental groups agree that the ruling is of particular importance in light of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact, which President Obama is pushing Congress to approve.
"This win underscores not just how aggressive and successful the Obama Administration has been in terms of enforcing our current trade agreements, but also the resolve with which we will enforce the high standards negotiated in TPP, whether it's with regard to labor, intellectual property rights or the environment," Froman stated.
However, the Sierra Club says that the WTO decision should warn lawmakers to reject the TPP.
"Indeed," Beachy and Solomon write, "the text of the controversial deal replicates the rules that the WTO used against India's solar program today. While many in Congress oppose the TPP, we could see even more trade cases against clean energy initiatives if the deal were to pass. Congress should view this ruling as further confirmation that a vote against the TPP is a vote for green jobs and climate action."
The Calcutta Telegraph reports that India will likely appeal the ruling, which it has 60 days to do.
In an outcome described as an outrage and a blow for local green jobs, the World Trade Organization ruled Wednesday in favor of the United States in its challenge to India's rapidly growing solar energy program.
It marks "a step in the wrong direction, away from the climate progress that the global community committed to achieving in December's Paris climate agreement," according to Ilana Solomon, director of the Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program.
The U.S. initiated its challenge to part of India's National Solar Mission in Feb. 2013. The problem, as the U.S. saw it, was part of India's National Solar Mission, requiring solar power developers to use solar cells and modules made in India rather than in the U.S. or another country. The WTO dispute settlement panel agreed with the U.S. that this locally-favoring requirement is "inconsistent" with and "not justified" by WTO rules.
India's solar mission also meant losses in profits for the United States. As the office of the U.S. trade representative stated following the ruling, "Since India enacted these domestic content requirements in 2011, U.S. solar exports to India have fallen by over 90 percent."
In addition, as Solomon and Ben Beachy, senior policy advisor with Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program, write,
Though India argued that the program helps the country to meet its climate commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the WTO rejected that argument. Indeed, the ruling boldly states that domestic policies seen as violating WTO rules cannot be justified on the basis that they fulfill UNFCCC or other international climate commitments. In effect, the WTO has officially asserted that antiquated trade rules trump climate imperatives.
The ruling sparked a similar reaction from Bill Waren, senior trade analyst at Friends of the Earth. "The government of India reasonably provided some preferences for local solar energy producers to convert from a carbon economy to a green economy. The WTO decision, finding India's solar energy program a violation of international trade law, is an outrage. Trade law trumps the Paris climate accord," he stated.
For its part, the Obama administration welcomed the WTO decision as a "victory" and said it sent a warning shot.
"This is an important outcome, not just as it applies to this case, but for the message it sends to other countries considering discriminatory 'localization' policies," U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said in a statement.
Froman and environmental groups agree that the ruling is of particular importance in light of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact, which President Obama is pushing Congress to approve.
"This win underscores not just how aggressive and successful the Obama Administration has been in terms of enforcing our current trade agreements, but also the resolve with which we will enforce the high standards negotiated in TPP, whether it's with regard to labor, intellectual property rights or the environment," Froman stated.
However, the Sierra Club says that the WTO decision should warn lawmakers to reject the TPP.
"Indeed," Beachy and Solomon write, "the text of the controversial deal replicates the rules that the WTO used against India's solar program today. While many in Congress oppose the TPP, we could see even more trade cases against clean energy initiatives if the deal were to pass. Congress should view this ruling as further confirmation that a vote against the TPP is a vote for green jobs and climate action."
The Calcutta Telegraph reports that India will likely appeal the ruling, which it has 60 days to do.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.