For months now the Trump administration has been promising to deliver a new biofuels package that would boost the market for production of soy- and corn-based alternative fuels. The move would help American farmers hurt by the administration's tariffs, as well as ease their anger over changing regulations that have exempted several oil refineries from blending biofuels with their other fuels.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandated that all fuels produced in the U.S. contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels. Part of that came in the form of biofuels, derived from living, renewable sources such as crops or plants. The term "biofuels" generally refers to the gasoline substitute derived from corn, while "biodiesel" is a diesel substitute derived from soybean oil or animal fats.
At the time many experts predicted biofuels would provide a renewable source of energy, help reduce the use of fossil fuels, and lessen the risks of climate change. After the Act was passed, the biofuels market jolted into life.
"In 2000 we used less corn for ethanol than sweeteners in soda," said Jeremy Martin, director of fuels policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "By 2010 ethanol was up there with animal feed as the largest consumer of corn." Last year total U.S. biofuel production reached 16 billion gallons a year, and industry projections anticipate continued growth.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the expansion of the biofuels industry — as a share of the fuel market and a lobbying power — is that the general public hasn't really noticed. Compared with fracking or coal, biofuels aren't the subject of many policy reports or New York Times op-eds. Media coverage of the biofuels package has been limited.
But as President Donald Trump continues to make promises about the future of biofuels, two important questions loom: Should the rest of the country care about what's going on in Iowa and other corn-belt states? And is biofuel expansion something we should welcome or oppose?
Lobbying and Public Perception
The industry often referred to as "Big Corn" has a surprising amount of power and has actively intensified its lobbying efforts.
In 2018 several biofuel interest groups each spent more than $1 million to lobby the government over the Renewable Fuel Standard, an average increase from 2017 of around $200,000. This is obviously small change compared with what the fossil-fuel industry spends — the biggest oil companies each spend $40-50 million every year — but the biofuel groups' efforts have paid off to some degree. Although the ethanol lobby has not made headway reducing the number of small refinery waivers issued by the government, they're getting other desired results: The Trump administration favors raising the minimum ethanol volume in gasoline, something the oil and gas lobby opposes.
Critics say this lobbying has allowed the industry to successfully broaden its market without fully informing customers of the potential costs and concerns, which range from reduced gas mileage to increased air pollution.
Perhaps as a result, the public perception of biofuels — or what little we know about it — remains fairly positive.
Unsurprisingly, one place where public approval seems to be holding is Iowa, a state whose economy also depends on biofuels.
According to a public opinion poll by the Iowa Biodiesel Board, a state trade association, 65 percent of Iowans have a positive opinion of biodiesel, while just 4 percent have a negative opinion. Those numbers haven't changed much over time.
"It's holding pretty steady," said Grant Kimberley, executive director of the association.
A national voter poll by the American Biodiesel Board released in October 2019 paints a similar picture. More than half of survey participants said they believed the federal government should encourage the use of biofuels.
Outside of trade group polls, though, there isn't a lot of academic research on public attitudes to biofuels and biodiesel. Gallup and Pew Research opinion polls don't ask about them, so we don't know the true national consensus on biofuels, or whether biofuels are more popular than other nontraditional sources of energy such as fracking, solar or nuclear power.
What we do know comes from a few years ago.
Bret Shaw, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has researched public attitudes within his state. His papers from 2011 and 2012 (based on research conducted in 2009) are some of the most recent to document American opinion. Almost two-thirds of Wisconsinites surveyed told him they support the use of biofuels, which matches the Iowa poll. They correctly answered an average of 5 out of 9 questions about biofuels, demonstrating reasonably good knowledge.
However, Shaw's studies suggested that public opinion may be more malleable and precarious than those robust approval ratings imply. In his surveys he found that renaming "biofuels" as "ethanol" negatively affected the opinion of Democrats but didn't sway Republicans. Public opinion on both sides dipped when the surveys stated that adding biofuel blends could lower a car's gas mileage.
When asked about ethanol's impact on the environment, 41 percent believed it causes less damage than gasoline, 44 percent believed it was about the same and only 15 percent thought ethanol caused more environmental damage.
Shaw cautions that public attitudes may have shifted in the past decade, but his studies still present the clearest snapshot of public perception of biofuels — as well as the opportunity to better inform consumers about the products that go into their gas tanks.
So why should the public care, especially since they have so little choice in the matter?
What the Public Doesn’t Know Can’t Hurt Them — Can It?
Advocates of biofuels around the country tout them as better for the environment than fossil fuels, a fact that polls tell us the public doesn't disagree with.
Scientists, on the other hand, have begun to question some of those environmental benefits. According to some studies, biodiesels emit more of certain pollutants than regular diesel, and biofuels can have a larger carbon footprint than gasoline, depending on where you start in the production cycle. These findings don't seem to enter the public discourse.
Increased corn production can also harm farmland because it causes farmers to cut back on crop rotation, a process essential to maintaining soil quality and reducing pests. Farmers also have an increased incentive to plant corn in ecologically sensitive grassland or wetlands.
Corn stalks after harvest. Phil Roeder / CC BY 2.0
But the effects of biofuel production on wildlife and public health are subtle and hard to separate from the consequences of food production. This sets biodiesel apart from other sources of pollution and environmental health, such as fracking, which are often much more immediately visible. For example, images of brown tap water were enough to mobilize national opposition to fracking. Intensified corn production doesn't generate such arresting sights. Corn requires more fertilizer than other crops, and the toxic algal bloom caused by fertilizer runoff into the rivers is a visible consequence of increased corn production to meet biofuel demand. However, these blooms occur out of sight in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Union of Concerned Scientists advocates for cleaner energy, but stands neither for nor against biofuels.
"Our position is that all fuel producers should be cleaning up their act," said Martin. "More emphasis on 'how do we make biofuels better' rather than just 'let's have more biofuels'."
Although these problems have been identified and studied, if not widely discussed, some experts suggest that maybe they don't matter in the long term.
"When they passed the first Renewable Fuel Standard, every forecast was that demand for gasoline would rise forever with economic growth," said Martin. "Now most long-term forecasts reflect that gas consumption is likely to fall rather than rise. That means we're headed towards ethanol use falling."
He adds that wide-scale electric vehicle adoption, unthinkable in 2005, now looks closer to reality. Once that happens, ethanol use could go into freefall.
Back in Iowa, biofuels and biodiesel advocates remain bullish about market expansion, even though the government remains only partially on their side.
"In the near future we think we can easily double our industry," said Kimberley, who doesn't believe a widespread adoption of large electric vehicles in sectors like commercial trucking, where vehicles otherwise run on bio-blends of diesel, is coming anytime soon.
Meanwhile the drama in Washington continues. The House Energy and Commerce Committee recently held a subcommittee hearing on the Trump plan to exempt certain oil refiners from the Renewable Fuel Standard's biofuel blending requirements. That plan made oil companies happy but enraged Iowa farmers. For now, that tension may continue to grow.
Reposted with permission from The Revelator.
Last year, the U.S. legalized hemp production under the 2018 Farm Bill and now farmers can finally grow their crop on an industrial scale. But can it really revolutionize everything from the textile industry to construction?
Researchers suspect some of the hype originated with a hemp lobby that's been sloppy with the science in its struggle to get the plant legalized. Still, studies also suggest that, with investment, it could replace some less sustainable materials.
So which claims stand up and which fall flat?
Claim one: Hemp was the first crop grown over 12,000 years ago.
Most evidence suggests humans first started domesticating plants around 10,000 years ago in Mesopotamia, but there isn't much evidence that hemp was grown quite that early.
Still, the history of humans and hemp is indeed long and intertwined. Archeological findings suggest it was grown in China more than 4,000 years ago to make paper, cloth and rope, and also for its oil.
Claim two: Hemp could be used in 25,000 products. Hemp is certainly a versatile plant in that the various parts, from the stem to the flower, can theoretically be used "to house and clothe yourself," according to Lawrence B. Smart, a professor at Cornell University's School of Integrative Plant Science in New York State who is researching the potential of cultivating the plant on an industrial scale.
It's also a great gluten-free and soy-free source of protein, and full of omega 3 and 6 oils usually found in fish, making it suitable both as a dietary supplement for vegans and as animal feed, Smart added.
"I think that claim of multiple uses including fiber and medicine is valid," he told DW. The question is whether those are "more cost-competitive or better or more sustainable than the ones in the market we're currently using."
Claim three: Hemp biofuels could power a green transport revolution.
Hemp as a biomass crop — its stems are high in cellulose — or hemp oil as biofuel, could compliment other renewable energy sources. But like other energy crops, there are inherent problems with growing on a mass scale. Despite claims that it doesn't need fertilizer, hemp, like corn, would require a lot of nitrogen.
"I just don't think we've done the proper life-cycle assessments to say hemp offers any advantages over using corn biofuels," said Smart. "It does produce a reasonable yield per acre but other crops are far more sustainable."
Smart's research group at Cornell is looking into a number of potential bioenergy crops. So far, their research suggests that willow, a perennial plant, could be more sustainable than an annual like hemp. That's because it can be planted once and then harvested for wood chips without disturbing the soil for 25 to 30 years. Every time a field is tilled or plowed, it releases carbon into the atmosphere.
The oil crushed from hemp seeds can go into everything from salad dressings to biofuels.
Claim four: Hemp grows in poor soil and doesn't require pesticides.
Another common claim is that hemp essentially grows itself. But because it wasn't cultivated on a large scale during the 20th century, there are few studies to show whether or not it grows easily in poor soil.
Initial smaller-scale tests in Italy and the U.S. show promising results on hemp extracting toxins from soil. Researchers also say because of its fast growth — when planted in the right conditions — it doesn't necessarily need herbicides.
Hemp also contains cannabinoids and terpenes, compounds that may deter insects. But Smart says people should be wary of claims that pesticides are never required.
"We've found a number of insect pests that will damage [hemp] and quite a few diseases, including some new species of fungi that are being defined," Smart said. Pennsylvania State University's agricultural analytical services lab also found that pests like aphids, mold and slugs can damage hemp.
"If you plant a little 20-by-20-foot garden plot, it's very unlikely that you'll experience the full range of pests and pathogens that you would expect on 20,000 acres," Smart added. Industrial farming of any monoculture crop leads to environmental problems, so it also comes down to how a crop is grown.
Claim five: Hemp could replace oil-based plastics and we could live in hemp houses.
Companies like Australian-based Zeoform and Kanesis in Italy are producing small amounts of hemp bioplastic. But right now, producing hemp plastics is complicated, energy-intensive and expensive, so it isn't going to usurp the petroleum-based varieties in the near future.
Still, hemp is proving a popular alternative to fiberglass for use in compressed panels — carmaker BMW is using hemp in its door panels — and as a sustainable building material.
The deceptively named "Hempcrete" isn't a replacement for concrete but an insulation material suitable for timber-framed houses. Most popular in France, it's pricier than conventional alternatives, but Pete Walker, a professor at the University of Bath's civil engineering and architecture department, says it has advantages.
"It's a renewable resource," Walker said. "You can grow the hemp in four months and then you're taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and locking it in this plant material." Its breathable structure also regulates a building's temperature and humidity, reducing energy consumption, he added.
Claim six: Hemp consumes a quarter/half the amount of water cotton does.
Recent comprehensive studies on cotton versus hemp are difficult to come by. One of the most extensive reports, which was published in the Stockholm Environment Institute in 2005, compared the two natural fibers with polyester, a synthetic material.
The study concluded that cotton needs around 50 percent more water in a growing season than hemp. Unlike hemp, cotton requires a lot of irrigation and is most frequently cultivated in parts of the world that are water-scarce, like Uzbekistan.
But it's not as simple as swapping one fiber crop for another. Hemp, while extremely durable, is also expensive and energy-intensive to work into a soft, wearable fabric. And its long fibers mean the process is completely different from working with short-fibered cotton, so the industry would essentially have to "retool" to make the switch.
Claim seven: The U.S. constitution was written on hemp.
The National Constitution Center and fact-checking website Politifact both completely refute one of the quirkier claims about hemp circulating on the internet. The U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are all written on parchment, which is treated animal skin.
But Constitution Center says drafts of these documents might well have been made on hemp paper, as the plant was widely cultivated in North America for rope and sails at the time. Founding Father Thomas Jefferson and the country's president George Washington grew hemp.
Can Hemp Become a 60 Million Acre Crop and Billion Dollar Industry? https://t.co/xGGxagwFmS
— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) October 4, 2018
Reposted with permission from our media associate DW.
Eye-Catching Designs Made from Recycled Plastic Bottles
The company sells a range of eco-friendly items like leggings, rash guards, and board shorts that are made using recycled post-consumer plastic bottles. There are currently 16 causes represented by distinct marine-life patterns, from whale shark research and invasive lionfish removal to sockeye salmon monitoring and abalone restoration.
One such organization is Get Inspired, a nonprofit that specializes in ocean restoration and environmental education. Get Inspired founder, marine biologist Nancy Caruso, says supporting on-the-ground efforts is one thing that sets Waterlust apart, like their apparel line that supports Get Inspired abalone restoration programs.
"All of us [conservation partners] are doing something," Caruso said. "We're not putting up exhibits and talking about it — although that is important — we're in the field."
Waterlust not only helps its conservation partners financially so they can continue their important work. It also helps them get the word out about what they're doing, whether that's through social media spotlights, photo and video projects, or the informative note card that comes with each piece of apparel.
"They're doing their part for sure, pushing the information out across all of their channels, and I think that's what makes them so interesting," Caruso said.
And then there are the clothes, which speak for themselves.
Advocate Apparel to Start Conversations About Conservation
Waterlust's concept of "advocate apparel" encourages people to see getting dressed every day as an opportunity to not only express their individuality and style, but also to advance the conversation around marine science. By infusing science into clothing, people can visually represent species and ecosystems in need of advocacy — something that, more often than not, leads to a teaching moment.
"When people wear Waterlust gear, it's just a matter of time before somebody asks them about the bright, funky designs," said Waterlust's CEO, Patrick Rynne. "That moment is incredibly special, because it creates an intimate opportunity for the wearer to share what they've learned with another."
The idea for the company came to Rynne when he was a Ph.D. student in marine science.
"I was surrounded by incredible people that were discovering fascinating things but noticed that often their work wasn't reaching the general public in creative and engaging ways," he said. "That seemed like a missed opportunity with big implications."
Waterlust initially focused on conventional media, like film and photography, to promote ocean science, but the team quickly realized engagement on social media didn't translate to action or even knowledge sharing offscreen.
Rynne also saw the "in one ear, out the other" issue in the classroom — if students didn't repeatedly engage with the topics they learned, they'd quickly forget them.
"We decided that if we truly wanted to achieve our goal of bringing science into people's lives and have it stick, it would need to be through a process that is frequently repeated, fun, and functional," Rynne said. "That's when we thought about clothing."
Support Marine Research and Sustainability in Style
To date, Waterlust has sold tens of thousands of pieces of apparel in over 100 countries, and the interactions its products have sparked have had clear implications for furthering science communication.
For Caruso alone, it's led to opportunities to share her abalone restoration methods with communities far and wide.
"It moves my small little world of what I'm doing here in Orange County, California, across the entire globe," she said. "That's one of the beautiful things about our partnership."
Check out all of the different eco-conscious apparel options available from Waterlust to help promote ocean conservation.
Melissa Smith is an avid writer, scuba diver, backpacker, and all-around outdoor enthusiast. She graduated from the University of Florida with degrees in journalism and sustainable studies. Before joining EcoWatch, Melissa worked as the managing editor of Scuba Diving magazine and the communications manager of The Ocean Agency, a non-profit that's featured in the Emmy award-winning documentary Chasing Coral.
During the seven year field trial of GE poplars described in the study, small environmental variations resulted in significant differences between trees that had the same GE constructs and also found differences between GE trees over time. This all points to how trees cannot be reliably engineered to prevent contamination.
"This study confirms what we've known all along," said Anne Petermann, executive director of Global Justice Ecology Project and coordinator of the international Campaign to STOP GE Trees. "Trees are extremely complex, and fertility, which is one of the most important functions of any living organism, has been evolving in trees for millions of years. It is incredibly arrogant and dangerous to think that through genetic engineering we can override such a fundamental function as reproduction. Far from allaying fears, this research opens up serious new concerns."
The genus populus includes 25-35 different species of trees, many of which can breed with each other, and are found across North America and Europe. Poplars can also reproduce asexually and live for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years. Therefore this seven year study on GE poplar trees is seriously inadequate.
"We still have no information about the potential long-term impacts of sterile or attempted sterile GE poplars on pollinators, birds and other wildlife that depend on fertile flowers and pollen to survive," added Lucy Sharratt of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. "We know GE sterility traits are never going to be 100 percent reliable. What happens when sterility fails and allows GE trees to escape? Unreliable sterility technologies would enhance rather than remove the dangers of GE tree contamination."
BJ McManama of the Indigenous Environmental Network explained the implications of GE poplars for Indigenous Peoples:
"Aspen, cottonwood, and other poplar varieties are an integral part of our individual and collective history, physical well-being and spiritual ceremonies. For Native tribes in the U.S. Southwest, for example, the cottonwood is sacred and every part harvested is done so without killing or harming the tree. Freshly fallen branches provide bark used in teas, poultices, tinctures and salves and the leaf buds and flowers provide food in the early spring. Fundamentally changing these trees' genetic makeup violates Natural Law, our cultural traditions and subsistence rights."
Developing plantations of fast-growing trees like GE poplars for biofuel, biomass or other raw materials could lead to the accelerated destruction of forests for the development of these plantations, a trend identified in a study by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Target areas for this expansion in the U.S. are the Pacific Northwest and Midwest, where many GE poplar test plots already exist.
Southeast Is Ground Zero for Genetically Engineered Trees https://t.co/jwMZoA8lMH @IENearth @StandingRockST @CenterForBioDiv @Greenpeace— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1498162997.0
But existing vegetable oils that could theoretically replace palm oil would be far more damaging to the environment because they would need more land, according to the IUCN report "Palm Oil and Biodiversity."
The production of palm oil is characterized by its high yield relative to other vegetable oils, meaning more of it can be produced from a given area of farmland than other oil crops. The latter require up to nine times more land than oil palms to produce the same amount of oil.
Palm oil is currently produced from just 10 percent of all farmland dedicated to growing oil crops, yet accounts for 35 percent of the global volume of all vegetable oils.
"Half of the world's population uses palm oil in food, and if we ban or boycott it, other, more land-hungry oils will likely take its place," IUCN director general Inger Andersen said in a press release.
Indonesia and Malaysia are the world's biggest producers of palm oil, accounting for a combined 90 percent of global supply. However, the expansion of oil palm estates, particularly in Indonesia, has long been criticized for driving deforestation across much of the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, as well as stoking social conflicts over land and other resources with forest and indigenous communities.
Feeding global demand for vegetable oils with other crops would only shift the damage elsewhere, to ecosystems such as the tropical forests and savannas of South America, the IUCN report said. One such oil crop widely cultivated in South America is soy, which has already had a massive negative impact on biodiversity in the region. Studies have linked the cultivation of soy to lower bird diversity in Brazil and Argentina. Much of Brazil's soy production takes place in the Cerrado, a vast tropical savanna that's home to rare and threatened species found nowhere else.
A recent report by the global environmental campaign NGO Mighty Earth found that 30,000 acres of forest, or about 12,100 hectares, were being cleared to plant new soy fields in northern Argentina, which supply some of the companies producing soy-based biodiesel for export to the U.S.
"When we look at soybean use of production there, we [sent] a team to Argentina, and we found tremendous damage to the forest," Henry Waxman, chairman of Mighty Earth, said at a panel discussion at the Oslo Tropical Forest Forum in Norway on June 28.
The IUCN report emphasized that even though palm oil was the most efficient oil crop, it needed to be deforestation-free to halt the destruction of biodiversity in Southeast Asia and other regions where it's produced. The current practice of producing palm oil remains highly destructive, leading to the decimation of tropical rainforests and the species that depend on them, the report said. Orangutans, gibbons and tigers are among the 193 threatened species on the IUCN's Red List that would be affected by the continued expansion of oil palm plantations into forest areas—a menagerie of biodiversity representing half of the world's threatened mammals and almost two-thirds of threatened birds.
"Palm oil is decimating South East Asia's rich diversity of species as it eats into swathes of tropical forest," said Erik Meijaard, the report's lead author and chair of IUCN's oil palm task force. "But if it is replaced by much larger areas of rapeseed, soy or sunflower fields, different natural ecosystems and species may suffer."
What's Next?
The report found that by far the biggest gains for biodiversity in an oil palm context are through avoiding further deforestation, which can be achieved through improved planning of new plantations and better management of forest patches left untouched in plantations.
The report also recommended stakeholders push for greater demand for sustainably produced palm oil, thereby putting pressure on producers to improve their practices.
"With most palm oil being supplied to India, China, and Indonesia, consumer awareness in these countries needs to be raised to ensure that this demand will materialize," the report read.
Adrian Suharto, the head of stakeholder engagement at Finland-based biodiesel supplier Neste Corporation, agreed with the report's recommendations.
"The most important thing is that what you buy is sustainable and you educate people and help support the local government in Indonesia and Malaysia, Thailand, Colombia, and everywhere else to understand the importance of having sustainable production [of palm oil]," he said at the Oslo Tropical Forest Forum.
The European Federation for Transport and Environment, an umbrella for NGOs working in the field of transport and the environment, said the best solution would be to completely remove biofuel mandates and incentives for crop-based biofuels that force people to use biofuel. It cited as a case in point the EU's 2009 policy requiring every EU member state to have 10 percent renewable fuels by 2020.
The EU is now revising its renewable energy policy, which will remove the incentives for crop-based fuels starting from 2020. It will also phase out the use of palm oil in biodiesel, which Laura Buffet, the manager for clean fuels at the transport and environment federation, said was a move in the right direction.
"I agree that if you keep the same drivers and the same high target, and you just remove one feedstock from the equation, it'll be likely to be filled by something else," she said at the Oslo forum. If those alternatives are soy or rapeseed oil, she added, "you will also look at indirect impact and deforestation, so it's not going to solve entirely the issue."
"That's why we're asking for reducing or completely removing the mandate, and that's going to be the best solution."
Reposted with permission from our media associate Mongabay.
But far from protecting U.S. interests, the tariffs are bound to stifle the current solar boom, destroying American jobs and dragging down clean energy innovation. As economists who research climate and energy policies that can foster a greener North American economy, we argue the government should instead create targeted subsidies that support innovation and lower costs across the supply chain. This approach would do a better job of helping the U.S. industry fend off foreign competition without harming the industry itself.
A Booming Industry
The U.S. solar industry has enjoyed unprecedented growth in recent years, thanks to the rapidly declining cost to install solar systems and tax breaks for homeowners, businesses and utilities that have expanded demand but are being phased out. Prices have plunged to roughly $1.50 per watt from around $6 in 2010 due to both innovation that made it less expensive to make panels anywhere and cheap imports.
In 2016, 87 percent of U.S. solar installations used foreign-produced panels, also known as modules, primarily from China.
The rapid decline in solar panel costs has been driven by policies in China and elsewhere intended to expand domestic manufacturing of these products.
The problem is not unique. Other countries dependent on cheap solar imports, including Germany and Canada, are also grappling with how to sustain the solar boom while protecting their own domestic manufacturers from unfair foreign competition.
The trade commission sent Trump its recommendations in the fall of 2017, giving him until Jan. 13 to accept or reject its guidance. Later, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer asked the agency to draft a "supplemental" report, which effectively extended the president's deadline for setting the tariffs.
The request, observers surmised, may have signaled concern about the this case's potential to spiral into a broader trade dispute with China and other major U.S. trading partners.
That may explain why the duties imposed are not as steep as the maximum 35 percent rate the U.S. International Trade Commission had recommended. The tariffs will begin at 30 percent and then taper down in 5 percent increments over four years, ending at 15 percent in 2022. And they won't apply to the first 2.5 gigawatts worth of imported solar cells, which domestic manufacturers use to build panels made in the U.S.
Solar Job Growth
Solar job growth took off in 2010. By 2016, more than 260,000 Americans worked in the industry, up from fewer than 95,000 seven years earlier.
An uninterrupted solar boom would create even more jobs. The number of solar panel installers, for example, would more than double from 11,300 to 23,000 within 10 years at the current pace of growth, which would make it the fastest-growing profession, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Another renewable energy mainstay, wind turbine technician, came in a close second.
Imposing tariffs on imported panels would cloud that outlook, largely because manufacturing accounts for less than 15 percent of U.S. solar jobs while installation amounts to more than half of them, according to the Solar Foundation's annual census. If panels get more expensive, the cost to go solar will rise and demand will fall—along with the impetus to employ so many installers.
The Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group that represents many companies in the industry, objected to the new duties, saying they could cost the industry 23,000 jobs in 2018.
Smarter Subsidies
Despite the robust growth in wind and solar employment and its official support for an "all of the above" energy policy that combines fossil fuels, nuclear power, biofuels and renewable energy alternatives like wind and solar, the Trump administration has sought to slash support for alternative energy through the federal budget.
We agree that the government should encourage solar panel manufacturing within the nation's borders. But there are better ways to support this important priority than by raising prices on imported equipment through punitive tariffs.
China's edge in solar panel manufacturing—apart from low wages—is driven by scale and supply-chain development, spurred by cost inducements like low-interest loans, technology development assistance and cheap land. Other newly industrialized countries like South Korea and Taiwan have followed China's lead by fostering their own solar manufacturing bases with targeted subsidies.
We believe the U.S. should follow suit. In addition to directing subsidies to reduce the costs of the solar supply chain, the government should also increase subsidies for private research and development for green innovation. Currently, federal financing for private solar R&D lags far behind levels seen in China and the European Union.
These subsidies could be funded by the tariffs the government was already collecting on solar panels imported from China and elsewhere before these new duties were considered.
If the U.S. government deems that additional restrictions are required, then it makes sense to follow a separate recommendation to freeze solar panel imports at 2016 market share levels. The government should then auction off the rights to import foreign solar panels to U.S. installers.
The government could spend the proceeds from these auctioned import licenses on domestic innovation and other efforts to cut supply chain costs for U.S. manufacturers of solar panels and related equipment.
While World Trade Organization rules limit the use of subsidies that explicitly promote a country's exports in global markets, the ones we are proposing would likely be WTO-compliant.
This is because their aim is to make the U.S. solar industry more competitive within the domestic market, given the government's earlier findings that cheap imported panels are being dumped—sold too cheaply—here.
Why Make an Exception?
Like most economists, we believe that subsidies should be avoided except in special circumstances. Here are three reasons why this industry is an exception.
First, when one nation subsidizes solar panel production and exports those panels, it makes it cheaper to go solar in other countries, effectively cutting the cost of implementing climate policies abroad.
Second, when solar energy replaces fossil fuels in one place, the declining carbon emissions benefit people around the globe. Climate change, after all, affects the entire world.
Third, R&D investments made in any one economy eventually add to the global knowledge base. Improving solar technology will ultimately benefit the entire industry worldwide.
The Trump administration's solar tariffs will yield none of these benefits. In fact, they could instigate a trade war over clean energy products with our trading partners globally.
That is why we believe that the smarter subsidies we are proposing are a better way to sustain the U.S. solar industry and protect jobs.
Editor's note: This is an updated version of an article published on Dec. 21, 2017.
Reposted with permission from our media associate The Conversation.