trail wrote:
stal wrote:
Any environmental benefit derived from Chinese panels is totally negated by the mining process of the
raw materials.
This tariff is not a regulation that requires U.S. manufacturers to source locally mined raw materials. It's just a tariff on the finished product (from what I can tell).
China is still a dominant producer of copper, silver, silicon and almost all rare earth metals. And I don't see how this affects those markets. If I'm making photovoltaics cell in the U.S. I'm still buying Chinese indium or whatever, and the ugly Chinese strip mine that employs 6 year-olds probably looks every bit as ugly.
If you want to start enforcing environmental or labor practices, then probably the way to do that is participating in global bodies that govern environmental or labor practices. But the U.S. has already said it wants to pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership - one of those bodies - so that's one less lever to use. And "the base" probably doesn't like participating in global bodies because of the appearance that any participation in global bodies cedes national sovereignty to foreign powers.
So tariffs. Where we get all the higher prices for U.S. consumers, but debatable benefit in other ways.
I get what you're saying, and I think you're right in a lot of ways.
The problem is that the "global bodies" you mentioned don't appear to be working to a lot of folks...just ask anyone who used to make steel in the US.
Insinuating that the WTO, or any "global body" can make China (or any foreign low cost producer of anything) play by the rules and equalize labor/environmental practices is naive.
This is why the dems have long targeted specific industries in specific countries to raise their labor/environmental practices in exchange for the repubs getting low/zero trade tariffs. Pretty standard historical stuff.
But as you said, the benefits are debatable at best.
----------------------------------------------------------------
My training