

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
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.
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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.