
The WTO rebuked India's ambitious solar program in a decision that climate advocates say shows the potential damage of deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
(Photo: Knut-Erik Helle/flickr/cc)
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
The WTO rebuked India's ambitious solar program in a decision that climate advocates say shows the potential damage of deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
On Wednesday, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled against India in a case brought by the U.S. government regarding its national solar energy program, sparking outrage from labor and environmental advocates.
As India's power demands grow, the government plans to produce 100,000 megawatts of energy from solar cells and modules. It has also included incentives for domestic manufacturers to use locally developed equipment.
According to Indian news outlets, the WTO ruled that India had discriminated against American manufacturers by providing such incentives, which violates global trade rules, and struck down those policies--siding with the U.S. government in a case that the Sierra Club said demonstrates the environmentally and economically destructive power of pro-corporate deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
"Today, we have more evidence of how free trade rules threaten the clean energy economy and undermine action to tackle the climate crisis," said Ilana Solomon, director of the Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program, said Thursday. "The U.S. should be applauding India's efforts to scale up solar energy--not turning to the WTO to strike the program down."
According to Indian media outlet Livemint, the U.S. government
has resorted to similar measures, specifying local content requirements and offering a range of subsidies for promoting its renewable energy sector at the federal, state, regional and local levels.
India spoke repeatedly against the US at WTO's committee on subsidies and countervailing measures, stating that American subsidy schemes relating to local or domestic content requirements for its solar companies are inconsistent with its global trade obligations.
In addition, Livemint reports, the ruling "goes against the spirit of an agreement signed early this year.... [in which] the two sides agreed to promote clean energy and expand solar energy initiatives."
Regardless, Solomon said, the WTO "needs to get out of the business of hampering climate action in countries around the globe. The outdated trade rules on the books now and under negotiation in trade pacts, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, encourage trade in fossil fuels and discourage countries from currently in place clean energy capacity.",,
"These rules simply do not reflect the urgency of solving the climate crisis and stand in the way of clean energy growth," Solomon said.
The Indian government will appeal the decision to the WTO's highest court, the appellate body. It is the second time that the WTO has ruled against India in a case with the U.S., which first brought legal action against the country's food security program in 2014.
The WTO ruled on that case in June, when it decided that the Indian ban on certain foods from the U.S. was "inconsistent with the global norms."
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. The final deadline for our crucial Summer Campaign fundraising drive is just hours away, and we’re falling short of our must-hit goal. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
On Wednesday, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled against India in a case brought by the U.S. government regarding its national solar energy program, sparking outrage from labor and environmental advocates.
As India's power demands grow, the government plans to produce 100,000 megawatts of energy from solar cells and modules. It has also included incentives for domestic manufacturers to use locally developed equipment.
According to Indian news outlets, the WTO ruled that India had discriminated against American manufacturers by providing such incentives, which violates global trade rules, and struck down those policies--siding with the U.S. government in a case that the Sierra Club said demonstrates the environmentally and economically destructive power of pro-corporate deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
"Today, we have more evidence of how free trade rules threaten the clean energy economy and undermine action to tackle the climate crisis," said Ilana Solomon, director of the Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program, said Thursday. "The U.S. should be applauding India's efforts to scale up solar energy--not turning to the WTO to strike the program down."
According to Indian media outlet Livemint, the U.S. government
has resorted to similar measures, specifying local content requirements and offering a range of subsidies for promoting its renewable energy sector at the federal, state, regional and local levels.
India spoke repeatedly against the US at WTO's committee on subsidies and countervailing measures, stating that American subsidy schemes relating to local or domestic content requirements for its solar companies are inconsistent with its global trade obligations.
In addition, Livemint reports, the ruling "goes against the spirit of an agreement signed early this year.... [in which] the two sides agreed to promote clean energy and expand solar energy initiatives."
Regardless, Solomon said, the WTO "needs to get out of the business of hampering climate action in countries around the globe. The outdated trade rules on the books now and under negotiation in trade pacts, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, encourage trade in fossil fuels and discourage countries from currently in place clean energy capacity.",,
"These rules simply do not reflect the urgency of solving the climate crisis and stand in the way of clean energy growth," Solomon said.
The Indian government will appeal the decision to the WTO's highest court, the appellate body. It is the second time that the WTO has ruled against India in a case with the U.S., which first brought legal action against the country's food security program in 2014.
The WTO ruled on that case in June, when it decided that the Indian ban on certain foods from the U.S. was "inconsistent with the global norms."
On Wednesday, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled against India in a case brought by the U.S. government regarding its national solar energy program, sparking outrage from labor and environmental advocates.
As India's power demands grow, the government plans to produce 100,000 megawatts of energy from solar cells and modules. It has also included incentives for domestic manufacturers to use locally developed equipment.
According to Indian news outlets, the WTO ruled that India had discriminated against American manufacturers by providing such incentives, which violates global trade rules, and struck down those policies--siding with the U.S. government in a case that the Sierra Club said demonstrates the environmentally and economically destructive power of pro-corporate deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
"Today, we have more evidence of how free trade rules threaten the clean energy economy and undermine action to tackle the climate crisis," said Ilana Solomon, director of the Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program, said Thursday. "The U.S. should be applauding India's efforts to scale up solar energy--not turning to the WTO to strike the program down."
According to Indian media outlet Livemint, the U.S. government
has resorted to similar measures, specifying local content requirements and offering a range of subsidies for promoting its renewable energy sector at the federal, state, regional and local levels.
India spoke repeatedly against the US at WTO's committee on subsidies and countervailing measures, stating that American subsidy schemes relating to local or domestic content requirements for its solar companies are inconsistent with its global trade obligations.
In addition, Livemint reports, the ruling "goes against the spirit of an agreement signed early this year.... [in which] the two sides agreed to promote clean energy and expand solar energy initiatives."
Regardless, Solomon said, the WTO "needs to get out of the business of hampering climate action in countries around the globe. The outdated trade rules on the books now and under negotiation in trade pacts, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, encourage trade in fossil fuels and discourage countries from currently in place clean energy capacity.",,
"These rules simply do not reflect the urgency of solving the climate crisis and stand in the way of clean energy growth," Solomon said.
The Indian government will appeal the decision to the WTO's highest court, the appellate body. It is the second time that the WTO has ruled against India in a case with the U.S., which first brought legal action against the country's food security program in 2014.
The WTO ruled on that case in June, when it decided that the Indian ban on certain foods from the U.S. was "inconsistent with the global norms."