6 ms·
You are correct that every country puts their economy before others. However, India is not asking another economy to help them. India can develop its solar ene
by noisy_boy 11y ago
You are correct that every country puts their economy before others.
However, India is not asking another economy to help them. India can develop its solar energy sector by itself.
The west accuses the developing countries to be big polluters since they use less environmentally-friendly means of energy production. Then when countries like India try to subsidize the domestic solar energy market, WTO accuses them of illegally supporting domestic over international solar producers. Its like you are called a drug-addict first and when you try to wean off it on your own, you are accused of cheating the rehab centres. Excellent example of double standards.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- davedx 11y ago> India can develop its solar energy sector by itself. Until the US sues them and the WTO rules against them. http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-india-solar-idINKCN0QV2FD20150827 http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-india-solar-idINKCN0QV2FD2...
- TheSpiceIsLife 11y agoIndia wants 8% domestic production, and the US has a cry. What a bully. How does the WTO enforce that sort of ruling? India has The Bomb.
- harryf 11y agoBecause 8% of India is huge - that would mean India has a functioning solar energy tech sector - perhaps one that might be able to compete worldwide
- mcv 11y ago8% of India is bigger than many entire countries. If India can export this and compete world wide, that's enormous.
- _nedR 11y agoAmerica believes in free trade as long as they are able to crush the competition like a bug even before it gets started off the ground. If you can have local producers that have 8% market share, then they might actually have a sliver of a chance to survive and compete in the market place, and thats unacceptable. Yep, free and fair.
- dexterdog 11y agoBut I think the US has their launch codes
- nroets 11y agoWhen South Africa (where I live), violated trade rules and put up barriers to US chicken imports, the US retaliated with barriers to the importation of some SA goods into the US. Eventually, SA gave in and removed the barriers. IMHO Free trade of commodities (food, solar cells etc.) is a good thing.
- m_mueller 11y agocan someone explain to me how EU/US can heavy handedly protect their own agriculture and not violate the same rules? How is energy infrastructure not part of the same exemptions (assuming that those exist)?
- pjc50 11y agoThe EU/US make the rules.
- sgift 11y agoShort version: Agriculture is one of the classic areas where countries usually said "no, we want to be independent, all the talk about free markets aside" .. That was the case when GATT[1] was still active (a framework, which built the base of the WTO), then came the Uruquay round[2] which established the WTO and stated that we now really, really have to find a way to include agriculture, which lead to the Doha round that ran since 2001 and more or less broke down in 2007/2008 - mainly over the issue of agricultural protection. Since then, nothing happened[3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_a... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Agriculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Agriculture [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Development_Round https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Development_Round
- m_mueller 11y agoIMO it makes quite a bit of sense to exclude a few areas from enforced free trade. Otherwise we could as well argue that countries must allow a free market for acquiring military services. The thing is, it's silly to only do this for agriculture. There's a few areas that are vital for a nation to have some sense of independence, and allowing the protection of energy infrastructure is certainly one of them. Don't get me wrong though, I'd prefer a world without the need for nation states and borders - but as long as we do have them IMO some of these international organisations are overstepping, and WTO is near the top of that list.
- JackFr 11y agoSo what you're saying is that without a local content requirement India is incapable of making competitive solar cells. I don't believe that's true. I think the local content requirement was simply a gift to politically well connected Indian firms. The Indian people should be thanking the WTO in this case, that rather than serving the interests of the crony capitalists, the interests of the people are being served. Few countries have been damaged as much by protectionism as has India, and fewer have had such great gains by its gradual elimination.
- cies 11y agoFk the WTO. Let's forsake them.
- tomp 11y ago> Then when countries like India try to subsidize the domestic solar energy market, WTO accuses them of illegally supporting domestic over international solar producers. Doesn't EU do the same (i.e. tax Chinese solar panels to support local producers)?!
- marcosdumay 11y agoSubsidizing local producers is against the rules, taxing foreign producers is not. Don't expect logic, empiricism, or any kind of sanity to hold in international trade policies.
- mcv 11y agoThe WTO should STFU in this particular case. It is clearly something that needs to be done, and many western countries also subsidize markets they want to stimulate. It is unreasonable to expect India to play by stupid rules that the US and EU constantly violate.
- Brakenshire 11y ago> many western countries also subsidize markets they want to stimulate Subsidizing markets is different to favouring local suppliers. For instance, Germany's feed in tariffs subsidized solar, but it didn't distinguish between German, American and Chinese manufacturers, and that policy is a major reason why solar prices have come down so much - Germany almost single-handedly supported the scaling up of capacity, and scaling down of cost of the global solar industry, from about $20/W down to $2/W.
- mcv 11y agoThat is true. Still, I find it somewhat odd to expect a relatively poor country (per capita) to subsidize rich western companies. I'm for cutting developing countries some slack.
- witty_username 11y agoIndia is subsidizing only local solar panels, that's the issue. I think if all solar panels were subsidized, then that would be fine.
- jessaustin 11y agoThanks, this clarifies the intentions of the politicians. They couldn't care less about solar; they just want to help out their cronies. If they subsidized all panels, the Indian firms would probably go out of business while the average Indian got better, cheaper panels from the world leader, China.