Tarriffs – UK Remb TM http://ukremb-tm.org/ Mon, 02 May 2022 16:31:00 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 https://ukremb-tm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/uk-remb-icon-150x150.png Tarriffs – UK Remb TM http://ukremb-tm.org/ 32 32 An end to tariffs on Ukraine would be a powerful symbol of support https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/05/02/an-end-to-tariffs-on-ukraine-would-be-a-powerful-symbol-of-support/ Mon, 02 May 2022 16:31:00 +0000 https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/05/02/an-end-to-tariffs-on-ukraine-would-be-a-powerful-symbol-of-support/

The United States and its allies have taken unprecedented steps to support Ukraine in the face of the Russian invasion. Ukraine received substantial military, economic and humanitarian aid (while Russia was hit with severe sanctions and export controls).

However, Ukraine’s economic difficulties remain discouraging. The World Bank estimates that Ukraine’s economy will shrink by 45% this year, depending on the length and intensity of the war over the coming months.

What more can be done to help kyiv’s economy weather the storm?

Recently, the UK announced that it would remove all tariffs and quotas covered by the UK-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. The move is consistent with the UK‘s strong support for Ukraine on several fronts.

The European Union on April 27 proposed a similar measure suspending all import duties on Ukrainian goods for a year. The measure would also suspend all EU anti-dumping and safeguard measures in place on Ukrainian steel exports. The proposal must be approved by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU before entering into force, which is expected soon.

The United States should do the same.

While not a panacea, suspending US tariffs on imports from Ukraine would help workers and businesses in the beleaguered country – notably, Ukraine has suspended all of its own import duties. That would require legislation, but Congress has in recent weeks shown strong bipartisan support for Ukraine aid measures.

Ukraine exported a modest $1.9 billion worth of goods to the United States in 2021, according to data from the US Census Bureau. This amount represented less than 0.1% of all US imports, but about 2.8% of Ukraine’s total exports, according to the latest WTO data. Globally, Ukraine’s main exports are seed oils, corn, wheat and steel products.

Removing tariffs on all imports from Ukraine would have little discernible effect on the US economy. However, it would serve as an act of goodwill towards Ukrainian workers, farmers and businesses for whom international trade ties can be a lifeline.

Prior to the Russian invasion, almost half of US imports from Ukraine were metals such as iron, pig iron and steel. With much of Ukraine’s iron and steel production located in the war-torn east of the country, many of its factories have been closed or destroyed since the invasion.

While it is uncertain whether the country has the capacity to export these metals to the United States at present, tariff relief would clearly do no harm. In fact, two US senators have proposed that the US remove the 25% Section 232 tariff on steel from Ukraine. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Toomey wrote that the action would be “a small but meaningful way for the United States to signal its support for Ukraine.” But ultimately, ending those tariffs is at the president’s discretion.

In addition to their terrible human toll in Ukraine, the Russian invaders have destroyed factories, mined farmland, blocked supply routes and created millions of refugees. An AmCham Ukraine survey found that only 41% of its member companies are fully operational. However, 50% continue to work partially, 29% have moved within the country and 19% have moved outside Ukraine for the time being, which shows their resilience.

Given the magnitude of this disruption, removing tariffs would have a minor effect at best. However, it would demonstrate the commitment of the United States to do everything in its power to help Ukraine in what is sure to be a long and arduous recovery.

While the economic impact of suspending US tariffs on imports from Ukraine may be small, the symbolism is powerful.

About the authors

Marie Kate Carter

Coordinator, International Policy

Read more

]]>
30-Lisa- notified tariff | Goa News https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/30/30-lisa-notified-tariff-goa-news/ Sat, 30 Apr 2022 22:41:00 +0000 https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/30/30-lisa-notified-tariff-goa-news/

Panaji: After no increase in electricity for the past two years, the Goa Electricity Department has notified a new electricity tariff with an increase in the tariff for domestic consumers.
Energy Minister Ramkrishna ‘Sudin’ Dhavalikar recently said that 10 to 40 paise per unit would be increased on electricity bills on household connections. TOI was the first to report an increase in electricity prices. He had also said that Goa’s electricity tariff was lower than that of Karnataka and Maharashtra.
The Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission (JERC) has approved an electricity tariff increase of approximately 8% for domestic consumers.
Overall, for all categories of consumers, the average increase in the tariff approved by the Board compared to the tariff in force is 1.58%, the tariff for the other categories having been reduced.
The commission which regulates the electricity sector in Goa and the union territories has approved the reduction of tariffs for other categories – commercial services, military engineering and temporary connections.
The rates for the Industrial, Hoardings/Signs and Supply Point categories will remain unchanged.
Along with the tariff for domestic consumers, the tariff for public lighting and low-voltage hotels has also been increased. The Commission has also
introduces fixed charges based on connected load for all Domestic and Commercial tiles.
Consumers have been paying the same rate since 2019 while the commission recommends an increase.
The commission approved an average tariff hike of 1.58% to further reduce the department’s reliance on budget support from the Goa government.
The commission responsible for regulating the electricity sector in Goa has warned the electricity department against its “overreliance” on budget support to bridge the department’s revenue shortfall.
The commission has approved an overall revenue gap of Rs 384.1 crore for the approved tariff in 2022-23, and the Goa government in December 2021 has committed upfront to close the revenue gap, which may arise , thanks to budgetary support.
Observing that the Goa government has been providing budget support for the past few years, the commission warned the power department to “be prepared for the repercussions in case the government withdraws budget support in the future”.
The commission went on to add that if the gap were to be filled entirely by electricity consumer revenues, it would have required an additional increase in average rates of 18.9%.
In its latest tariff order, the commission warned the ministry that it relied too heavily on budget support and asked it to prepare for future repercussions should the government withdraw budget support.
ReplyReply allForward

FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL NETWORKS
]]>
Tariff-hungry solar makers are trying to capitalize on rising anti-China sentiment https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/29/tariff-hungry-solar-makers-are-trying-to-capitalize-on-rising-anti-china-sentiment/ Fri, 29 Apr 2022 10:00:00 +0000 https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/29/tariff-hungry-solar-makers-are-trying-to-capitalize-on-rising-anti-china-sentiment/

you.S. Solar power makers are seeking to channel growing aggressiveness toward China by backing new tariffs on competing products imported from Asia.

The Commerce Department is currently investigating whether Chinese companies are circumventing existing tariffs on Chinese solar products by sending solar cells and modules to factories in third countries before the products are shipped to the United States, a violation of the American commercial law, thus reinforcing China’s dominant hold. on the solar supply chain and giving it even more leverage on a rapidly growing industry.

ENERGY DAILY: SOLAR INDUSTRY LEFT IN “WAITING MODEL” BY TRADE RATE SENSOR

The investigation focuses on whether factories in Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam operate more or less as intermediaries for products that had already been functionally completed in Chinese factories or whether products undergo finishing important in these countries.

California-based module maker Auxin Solar filed a petition with the department in February alleging work performed at third-country factories is “minor or insignificant,” constituting tariff circumvention. The ministry opened its investigation on April 1.

But beyond the technical claims, Auxin raised the human rights abuses associated with forced labor in China’s Xinjiang region.

“[Chinese manufacturers’] Relentless predatory pricing has been fueled by China’s upstream solar supply chain non-market subsidies, Chinese People’s Liberation Army-led intellectual property theft, and inhumane forced labor practices. the petition.

He added that China’s economic policies “have greased the slippages so that Chinese companies can easily complete production in Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia to circumvent existing barriers. [anti-dumping and countervailing duties] commands on chinese [crystalline silicon photovoltaic] cells and modules.”

Trade groups supporting solar energy companies, including the Solar Energy Industries Association and the American Clean Power Association, fiercely oppose the investigation and say it has already hurt business, further warning that the Introduction of tariffs would disrupt industry and President Joe Biden’s green energy and climate change agenda.

Meanwhile, Nick Iacovella of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group representing American producers, from farmers to ranchers and manufacturers, argued that opposition to the Commerce Department investigation furthers the interests of Chinese manufacturers by compared to American companies.

He pointed to SEIA members, which include US subsidiaries of Chinese solar makers such as JinkoSolar.

“Right here [Chinese manufacturers] fund this trade association that claims to represent the solar industry, and whenever there is a decision to be made that will either benefit American workers and American manufacturers or Chinese manufacturers and Chinese workers, they take the side that benefits to China,” Iacovella told the Washington Examiner.

Iacovella, a former staffer of Florida GOP Senator Marco Rubio, further said it was “out of the question” that all Chinese companies operate under the influence of the Chinese government.

“If you follow this, there is no Chinese company that operates outside the reach and influence of the Chinese government, this also extends to its American subsidiary,” added Iacovella, who is now vice- CPA’s senior president of public affairs and communications.

Dan Whitten, vice president of public affairs at SEIA, called the claims of Chinese influence “absurd and patently false,” saying the group’s motivation for opposing the petition is to protect American solar jobs.

“Of the 60 companies on SEIA’s board of directors, only one company is headquartered in China,” he said in a statement. “Like every board member, they have a voice.”

SEIA and others on its side of the issue urged the Commerce Department not to initiate the investigation and fully deny the circumvention charge, arguing that the petition had no merit — largely because the department has determined in previous cases that the type of work done on airframes and modules in the four Asian countries is significant and therefore not subject to duties.

Opponents of the survey also argue that tariffs are an ineffective mechanism to protect and expand American manufacturing while also claiming that the industry must rely on imports due to the large imbalance between American demand for solar power and what American manufacturers can provide.

Additionally, reliance on cellular and modular products from the aforementioned Asian countries is entrenched, as they account for about 80% of US imports, according to SEIA.

“We have to rely on the global supply chain at this point,” said Chad Farrell, founder and CEO of Vermont-based Encore Renewable Energy. Washington Examiner during a sit-down this week. “It’s a global economy for reasons that none of us sitting around this table have a say in.”

John Smirnow, SEIA’s general counsel, claimed the focus on China in Auxin’s petition report was a misdirection of its motivation to use trade law to price competing solar cell sources. .

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory released a report in April 2021 outlining several U.S. solar manufacturers, including Auxin. The report notes Auxin’s import habits, including cell purchases from Taiwan and Germany.

“Auxin wants this case to be about geopolitics. It’s not,” Smirnow said. “It’s about getting a competitive advantage for their imports.”

“They say, ‘Put a tariff on my competitor across the country, on his business from Malaysia, but…let me bring my cells from Taiwan duty-free’.”

CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Both sides of the bypass case have supporters in Congress. Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown and Republican Sen. Rob Portman, both of Ohio, called the opening of Chinese companies’ manufacturing operations in the four Asian countries a “textbook bypass” and said the Commerce Department “must give full and fair consideration to these allegations of illegal and unjust activity.” circumvention of our trade remedy laws.”

Other Democrats, however, joined Nevada Sen. Jacky Rosen in sharing concerns that a positive finding in the investigation would “stall many ongoing and planned U.S. solar projects, negatively impacting across all segments of the U.S. solar industry and resulting in significant job losses.”

]]>
Reducing food tariffs won’t solve UK’s cost of living crisis, farmers’ union warns | Food industry https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/27/reducing-food-tariffs-wont-solve-uks-cost-of-living-crisis-farmers-union-warns-food-industry/ Wed, 27 Apr 2022 16:50:00 +0000 https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/27/reducing-food-tariffs-wont-solve-uks-cost-of-living-crisis-farmers-union-warns-food-industry/

Lowering food tariffs will not solve the cost of living crisis and it would be ‘misleading’ to suggest this to consumers, the Farmers’ Union chairman has said after reports that ministers are planning to drastically cut taxes on food ‘import.

Minette Batters, chair of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), which represents the interests of 55,000 food producers in England and Wales, said the lowering of the tariff wall for imported food “isn’t even beginning to solve the problem” of soaring grocery prices.

The cabinet is debating whether to lower tariffs on foods such as oranges and rice, which are difficult to produce in the UK, in order to bring prices down.

Ministers including Boris Johnson are pushing to cut import tariffs, The Sun reported on Monday, to help families manage soaring inflation.

Minette Batters on her farm near Salisbury, Wiltshire. Photo: Adrian Sherratt/The Observer

Food and non-alcoholic drink prices were up 5.9% on the year to mid-March, according to official figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

However, other cabinet members, including International Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan, are said to oppose such plans, saying the UK’s move to unilaterally cut tariffs would put it at a disadvantage when negotiating a deal. post-Brexit trade deals.

“We have the third most affordable food here in the world and with the retail price war going on, we probably have the most affordable,” Batters told reporters, adding that she doesn’t believe the price drop food would be sustainable.

The conflict in Ukraine – a major producer of wheat and sunflower oil – is fueling fears of global food shortages.

Batters said: “It’s about making sure everyone keeps producing what they’re good at so that we don’t cause shortages of availability because that would just increase inflation.

“Just lowering the tariff wall isn’t even enough to solve the problem. It is a very complex problem that requires the establishment of a long-term strategy to deal with the short, medium and long term.

“It’s misleading for consumers to just think ‘lower the price wall’ and that fixes the problem.”

Batters was speaking as the NFU set out plans to increase UK agrifood exports by 30% by 2030, to bring the total value to over £30billion, by finding ways for farmers to sell their products in more foreign markets.

Sign up for the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk

NFU calls on government to work ‘in partnership’ with food producers to target new export markets as ministers travel the world to negotiate free trade deals, highlighting how industry is working with ministers other countries like Australia, where farmers are included in the trade. assignments.

Batters has previously criticized the government’s ‘adversarial’ approach when dealing with farmers and accused ministers of using food producers as a ‘pawn’ in post-Brexit trade deals with major food-producing countries. foodstuffs, Australia and New Zealand.

Farmers have raised concerns that free trade deals could lead to more cheaply produced imports flooding the UK market, leaving them unable to compete.

]]>
Call for more accommodation in Longreach as rates escalate | Queensland country life https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/26/call-for-more-accommodation-in-longreach-as-rates-escalate-queensland-country-life/ Tue, 26 Apr 2022 02:00:00 +0000 https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/26/call-for-more-accommodation-in-longreach-as-rates-escalate-queensland-country-life/

The price of accommodation in Longreach, which in some places is among the most expensive in the state, is for civic leaders and residents who need to use the town as a service center.

During the Easter school vacation period, prices ranged from $289 per night for a standard queen room in four motels ranging from 3 to 3.5 stars, to $249 and $345 for heritage-themed boutique accommodations. and $450 for a glamping option with breakfast included.

Cabins at RV parks were listed at $165 a night or sold out.

By comparison, similar motel rooms in Winton during the same period cost between $145 and $170 a night.

In Rome, where the Easter in the Country festival was taking place, most accommodations were sold out, but one 4-star motel in town advertised a king room for $250 while a queen room across the road was available for $179.

Outside of holiday periods, accommodation in Rome is advertised on Booking.com from $98 for a $190 cabin in a 4-star motel.

Some of Longreach’s boutique accommodations offer outdoor swimming.

While prices at some Longreach motels were $30 to $40 cheaper the week after the holiday ended, prices for some standard accommodations remain close to $300 a night.

It is understood that a company owns 70% of the available housing in the hinterland city.

People from other cities who need to spend the night to see specialist doctors have contacted the Queensland country life about the costs involved, and people who run field days locally have been trapped with budget blowouts for the same reason.

RELATED: Longreach the glamp

Longreach Regional Council Mayor Tony Rayner said people from out of town had told him they were choosing to stay in Winton or Barcaldine because of the price.

“The Council is concerned that this will damage Longreach’s reputation, but if market forces are at work and landlords are getting 80-90 per cent occupancy, it’s a difficult argument to pursue,” a- he declared.

He said a meeting with some landlords revealed that many motels in Longreach dated back to the 1980s and needed major renovations, including replacing bathrooms and flooring as well as painting.

“For some motels, this is the first upgrade they’ve had since construction, and construction and supply costs are more expensive than in the Southeast,” he said.

“All of these aspects contribute to higher rates, which is a prospect I hadn’t considered and one I understand.

“It’s about trying to hit the middle ground of what people are willing to pay without damaging our reputation.

“Owners we spoke with have different views on what is a reasonable price to pay.

“At the end of the day, the high cost of accommodation is a concern, but there’s not much the council can do about it, when the market dictates the price.”

Local tour operator Alan Smith said he believed the rates showed Longreach needed more accommodation.

“The demand is definitely up, but I think we’re overestimating ourselves because of that,” he said.

READ MORE:

Want daily news highlights delivered to your inbox? Sign up for the Queensland country life newsletter below.

]]>
Electricity tariff should be increased by 5 to 10 paise per unit: Goa Minister Ramkrishna Dhavalikar | Goa News https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/24/electricity-tariff-should-be-increased-by-5-to-10-paise-per-unit-goa-minister-ramkrishna-dhavalikar-goa-news/ Sun, 24 Apr 2022 04:01:00 +0000 https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/24/electricity-tariff-should-be-increased-by-5-to-10-paise-per-unit-goa-minister-ramkrishna-dhavalikar-goa-news/ PONDA: Energy Minister Ramkrishna ‘Sudin’ Dhavalikar said on Saturday that the government may increase the electricity tariff from 5 to 10 paisa per unit. The hike that was declared about six months ago would be implemented now to boost revenue so pending energy projects could get underway, he said.
“We will not be able to proceed with the pending underground cabling works across the state unless we implement the hike,” the minister said, speaking to reporters at an event held at Goa Engineering College (GEC), Farmagudi.
Dhavalikar further said that the Rs 5,000 crore underground cabling project will be completed within five years.
Dhavalikar said that over the past two years, there were 4,500 pending requests with the department for various requests including change of name, location, additional load, three-phase connections, etc. ordered to speed up the process.
“The remaining applications will be processed by Monday,” Dhavalikar said.
He said insurance cover of Rs 10 to Rs 25 lakh will soon be provided for the safety of the linesmen.
“If anyone takes money for an additional charge, please let us know and we will take action immediately,” Dhavalikar said. The minister said he also plans to engage engineering students in development projects.
“We are planning to set up a 1 MW solar power plant on the GEC campus and its students will be encouraged to design and set up the plant. The plant will supply the university campus and the town of Ponda,” said Dhavalikar.
Also, three additional power substations will be installed in Verna, Sancoale and Ponda to improve power supply in these areas, he said.
Dhavalikar, who also holds the housing portfolio, said the state government would review the dilapidated housing council buildings.
“We are planning projects to enable the poor natives of Goa to have their own homes in vacant housing council plots,” he said.
Some housing council buildings are in poor condition and the government plans to implement some measures to improve their condition, Dhavalikar said. ]]>
How Putin Advocated for the G7’s Clean Green Plan https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/22/how-putin-advocated-for-the-g7s-clean-green-plan/ Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:18:00 +0000 https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/22/how-putin-advocated-for-the-g7s-clean-green-plan/

This is the first of two pieces on the G7’s vision for a clean green plan. Read the second episode here.

Imagine a policy that turns the screw on Russia, sends a powerful message to China not to flex its muscles and helps save the planet. It sounds like snake oil, but the West already has the basis for such a policy.

Think of it as a green “Marshall Plan” or a green alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the massive infrastructure project launched in 2013. Major industrialized nations in the Group of Seven (G7) have communicated their vision of this loosely coordinated strategy plan at their summit last June with an alphabetical soup of acronyms.

Its components include the US’ Build Back Better World (B3W), the UK’s Clean Green Initiative (CGI) – which I helped shape with a proposal to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in March 2021 – and the European Union Global Gateway. Collectively, it is designed to help countries in the Global South (in Asia, Africa and Latin America) rapidly decarbonize their economies, tackling climate change while preventing them from falling into China’s orbit.

Now the G7 must turn its vision into reality to respond to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which highlighted Europe’s dependence on Russian energy. While it is unclear whether the West will show unity of action in pursuit of this plan, or whether it can muster the trillions of dollars of private capital needed to fund it, its geostrategic and planetary logic is undeniable.

First, it expands the anti-Russia coalition to include more countries from the South. While wealthy liberal democracies united in opposing Putin’s invasion, many poorer countries hesitated to condemn it. The war and ensuing sanctions have already driven up global energy and grain prices, threatening serious hardship for any poor country that is a net importer of these commodities.

The embryonic Green Marshall Plan responds directly to two of the main needs of the countries of the South: to develop their economies and to avoid the worst ravages of climate change.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine makes this plan doubly relevant. Developing and emerging countries desperately need cheaper alternatives to hydrocarbons, but their already shaky finances have deteriorated further, so they have little money to invest in renewable energy. The West must encourage private capital flows through targeted financial engineering.

Moreover, it will be difficult to cut off Putin’s source of income as long as he sells hydrocarbons to the countries of the South. While the West might try to bully poor countries into giving up on Russia, it would be more effective to help them meet their energy needs in an alternative, cleaner way.

Finally, some emerging countries could produce renewable energy not only for themselves, but also for the West. For example, North African countries are uniquely positioned to send clean energy across the Mediterranean and help wean the EU off Russian gas.

Countering China

As Washington fears Beijing will help Moscow evade sanctions or provide it with military hardware, it is seeking to send a powerful message.

But the effectiveness of any economic threat against Beijing will depend on the size of a coalition the United States can muster. Chinese President Xi Jinping will calculate that the rest of the West will be reluctant to hit China with sanctions, given how heavily Western economies depend on trade with his country (China’s economy is ten times larger than China’s). Russia – and the gap is widening). Xi will also take comfort in the fact that China has developed deep economic and diplomatic ties with large swathes of the developing world through the BRI.

But if the West builds alternative suppliers of goods and raw materials such as rare earths in the Global South, it will reduce its dependence on Chinese imports. Then Xi won’t be able to blackmail him like Putin blackmailed the EU through the bloc’s reliance on Russian gas.

Although China has gained a head start, the BRI has lost momentum. Chinese investment in BRI countries, which peaked at $125 billion in 2015, has fallen to $47 billion in 2020. Recipient countries are struggling to repay their debts to Beijing. Meanwhile, 35% of BRI projects struggle with corruption, labor violations, environmental pollution and public protests, according to a recent survey.

This means that the West can still catch up. The G7 has set out various principles to guide its plan, many of which contrast sharply with the BRI: it is a values-driven vision ensuring transparency and sustainability, and a market-driven approach instead of China’s dependence on loans from state-owned companies. banks.

The focus on leveraging private sector finance and businesses is the competitive advantage of the G7 plan over the BIS. Meanwhile, an emphasis on transparency could bring great governance benefits to developing and emerging countries (although some Southern governments may be reluctant to embrace this principle).

A clean and green planet

A healthier planet, of course, would be the plan’s other main benefit. The central idea is to help countries in the Global South make rapid and equitable transitions to net-zero carbon emissions through partnerships with individual countries, often referred to as “country-led platforms”. Carbon-intensive industries would be quickly shut down and clean industries created, while workers in old industries would be retrained so they could benefit from the transition.

South Africa, a coal-dominated economy, signed the first such agreement last year. The UK, France, Germany, US and EU agreed to provide it with initial concessional funding of $8.5 billion, with the expectation that much more private capital would flow in. South Africa has also announced a 2050 net zero target, making it one of the few major emerging markets to have such an early target (China and India, for example, have set 2060 targets and 2070, respectively).

Rich countries, especially the United States, will also have to do much more to reduce their own emissions. But a rapid transformation of the Global South will make a big contribution to the overall goal, because Africa, India and other parts of the developing world will not need to follow the West and China on the dirty path to growth.

An ambitious G7 plan could even trigger a virtuous circle that would push China to decarbonize. If Beijing wishes to stay in the game of providing infrastructure to developing countries, it can respond by further “greening” the coal, steel and concrete-intensive BRI. The result would be a competition between the West and China to green the Global South.

At the very least, the plan can help the West pressure Beijing to decarbonize its own export industries. After all, he cannot credibly threaten to shift away from carbon-intensive Chinese exports unless he helps create alternative green suppliers in other emerging economies.

The EU is already planning to apply “carbon tariffs” on certain carbon-intensive imports from China and elsewhere. The German government will likely use its G7 presidency to bring other countries with ambitious net-zero plans into a “carbon club,” which would then collectively impose tariffs on non-members.

The problem? It is easy to present tariffs as a protectionist measure that will keep countries poor, so that EU plans could backfire on countries in the South. India, Brazil and South Africa have already expressed “serious concern” (together with China) over carbon pricing.

But things would be completely different if the West first helped developing and emerging countries develop green industries. Countries that have signed partnership agreements could then be exempted from carbon tariffs. They might even start calling for the imposition of tariffs on countries like China that continue to use dirty technology.

It is now

The Ukraine crisis highlights the importance of the G7’s Green Marshall Plan. Currently, the West is paying the price for not reacting to Putin’s 2008 invasion of Georgia and Crimea in 2014. It should not make the same mistake with China, which is probably a threat to more long term.

And while it will take many years to foster green industrial revolutions in the Global South, Beijing will get the message now if the West ambitiously pushes its plan forward.


Hugo Dixon is a journalist, activist and entrepreneur. A version of this article was also published by RUSI.

Further reading

Image: A man on his tricycle rides past the cooling tower and chimneys of a coal-fired power plant in Beijing June 1, 2012. Photo by David Gray/REUTERS

]]>
Craft brewers also get screwed over aluminum prices by U.S. rolling mills and smelters, Beer Institute report says https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/20/craft-brewers-also-get-screwed-over-aluminum-prices-by-u-s-rolling-mills-and-smelters-beer-institute-report-says/ Wed, 20 Apr 2022 14:24:59 +0000 https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/20/craft-brewers-also-get-screwed-over-aluminum-prices-by-u-s-rolling-mills-and-smelters-beer-institute-report-says/

We all know that cans are not only hard to find these days, but they’re expensive when you find them. Why? Request. Cans are the preferred format for craft beer packaging but also for all other beverage brands, from sodas to energy drinks. Availablity. This whole Ball Corp debacle (just to start). Then there is the cost. The raw material cost for aluminum is understandably high, but the price of the product itself is skyrocketing because, well, all of those reasons we just mentioned with an added layer of politics for good measure. Here’s an example of the latter: Nearly four years since the Section 232 aluminum tariffs went into effect (catch them up here), the U.S. beverage industry alone has paid more than 1, $4 billion in tariffs on cans. But here’s the catch: It’s not just about foreign aluminum — it’s also the extra fees from US and Canadian metal traders.

This is according to research conducted on behalf of the Beer Institute by HARBOR Aluminium. Excerpt from the press release:

Research conducted on behalf of the Beer Institute by HARBOR Aluminium, an independent authority on the aluminum industry and its markets, found that between the implementation of Section 232 aluminum tariffs on 23 March 2018 and on February 28, 2022, the U.S. beverage industry paid $1.416 billion in Section 232 tariffs on 7.1 million metric tons of aluminum. Of this amount, only $111 million (8%) went to the US Treasury. HARBOR Aluminum estimates that U.S. rolling mills, U.S. foundries and Canadian foundries received $1.305 billion (92%) of the total by charging end users — such as U.S. brewers — a tariff-ridden price, which the metal whether or not intended to be priced according to its content or origin.

HARBOR Aluminum also estimated that in 2021 alone, the U.S. beverage industry paid $463 million in Section 232 tariffs. Of that $463 million, only $15 million (3% ) went to the US Treasury, while $448 million (97%) went to US rolling mills, US foundries and Canadian foundries.

Ouch. But hey, if that makes you feel better (it shouldn’t), U.S. primary production is up sharply in 2022. Based on Aluminum Association surveys (check it out here), the rate estimated annual primary aluminum production in the United States was 1,000.2 thousand metric tons ( kmt) in March 2022, an increase of 12.9% from the March 2021 annual rate of 885 .9 kmt. The first three months of 2022 saw similarly impressive jumps in primary aluminum production (dig out that chart). Of course, the production of primary aluminum has dropped significantly over the last few years, even before the pandemic, considering the last 10 years it was over 2 million tons, and that of course has a lot to do with imported aluminum .

Yet that does not give American rolling mills, American foundries and Canadian foundries the right to inflate prices unnecessarily. From the perspective of liquor manufacturers, you might as well remove those tariffs – also from the perspective of craft beer consumers.

“With the cost of gasoline and groceries at record highs, American families and businesses are feeling the pressure of the high cost of living. This new research shows that aluminum tariffs continue to drive up prices for American consumers and businesses,” said Jim McGreevy, president and CEO of the Beer Institute. “The quickest way to mitigate these high prices for American businesses and families is to repeal the tariffs.”

One last fun fact. According to the same report: In 2020, brewers purchased more than 41 billion aluminum cans and bottles, making aluminum the largest input cost in American beer manufacturing.

]]>
Tariff investigation causes disruption for Vermont solar companies https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/17/tariff-investigation-causes-disruption-for-vermont-solar-companies/ Sun, 17 Apr 2022 15:31:00 +0000 https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/17/tariff-investigation-causes-disruption-for-vermont-solar-companies/
The solar panel at Crossest Brook Middle School in Duxbury on Wednesday August 25, 2021. Photo by Glenn Russell/VTDigger

Thomas Hand, co-founder of Manchester-based MHG Solar, is struggling to find panels to carry out a solar project that would power most municipal buildings in Fair Haven.

Disruptions to the solar supply chain have created enormous challenges that are now hampering the completion of the 500 kilowatt project, which is over two and a half years in duration.

The hand is not alone: ​​due to a new investigation by the US Department of Commerce, many solar panels have evaporated from the market. As a result, representatives from solar companies across the state said their projects have stalled.

Industry leaders say the impact of the potential new tariff could affect jobs related to Vermont’s solar industry and across the country hamper progress toward meeting climate and environmental goals. ‘renewable energy.

The investigation “probably impacts everyone” in Vermont’s solar industry, said Jim Merriam, CEO of White River Junction-based Norwich Solar.

In late March, the Biden administration announced a new investigation into whether China is avoiding tariffs on solar panels by routing some of its business through Southeast Asian manufacturers, who then sell to the United States.

Merriam has worked with companies in Southeast Asia that are currently under investigation, and one company has threatened to cancel an order, he said.

Norwich Solar is building projects in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine and employs about 35 people and “dozens and dozens of contractors and their employees,” he said.

“When you have an injection of variability on the panel that’s going to be used, it ripples through the whole design and just adds risk everywhere, because the project is so manufacturer-centric and model or panel-centric that you use”, Merriam mentioned.

Prices for available panels are rising, Hand said. In early April, he said the price of a 445-watt panel had risen from around $175 to $225.

Hand, reading an email he received from Trina, a solar company headquartered in China, said the company was in a “holding pattern” until the investigation was resolved.

China dominates the global solar market. In an effort to combat trade practices that disadvantage American manufacturers, the Trump administration first imposed tariffs on solar products from China. Biden extended the policy earlier this year, with some changes.

In February, Auxin Solar Inc., a California-based solar company, filed a petition asking the US Department of Commerce to investigate certain imports of solar cells and panels from Southeast Asia. The survey applies to Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, according to a notice from the International Trade Administration, part of the Department of Commerce.

Heather Zichal, CEO of the American Clean Power Association and former energy and climate change adviser to former President Barack Obama, told The Associated Press that the investigation could affect up to 80% of energy supply. US solar panels.

During the investigation’s review period, which she described as “glaring” in an op-ed on the organization’s website, tariffs of “up to 250% are effectively applied to the majority of supply of solar modules in the United States – artificially increasing the total cost of household electricity”. solar projects at a level that essentially freezes project construction,” she wrote.

Fear of expanded tariffs, which could be retroactive, has prompted many companies to stop shipping to the United States, industry executives say.

In response to claims by solar companies regarding the handling of the investigation, Kevin Jones, director of the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, took issue with the idea that the administration should not “follow the law and honestly investigate complaints”. brought to them legally.

“To me, there’s nothing but the trust that we should have in the Biden administration and the Commerce Department to look at this in terms of upholding the law and the best interests of the United States in the clean energy industry,” he said.

Peter Sterling, executive director of Renewable Energy Vermont, an industry group that represents solar power and other renewable companies, said many industry players are looking for more certainty about the investigation and when a decision could be made.

“If there is an idea of ​​the scope of this decision, it helps everyone to plan,” he said.

Paul Lesure, co-founder and president of South Burlington-based Green Mountain Solar, said the investigation indirectly affects the company. Green Mountain Solar primarily works on residential projects, he said, and typically buys panels from companies in South Korea or US companies that have manufacturing facilities in Vietnam and Singapore — not ones that do. the subject of an investigation.

The survey squeezes the market, he said. Those who cannot buy panels from the companies under investigation turn to the remaining manufacturers.

“So these other people are going to the panels that we would actually use,” Lesure said, “which is also causing us supply chain issues and price gouging.”

Rather than relying on a constant flow of panels, the company may need to take out a loan, for example, to “try to buy panels when we can get them so we can continue to deliver to customers”, a he declared.

Sterling is frustrated with the impacts of the investigation. Still, he said he understands the Biden administration was obligated to investigate Auxin Solar’s claims.

Long-term policies and “massive public investment” are needed to support a domestic manufacturing industry in the United States, he said, and until those policies are established, it will be difficult for solar companies to continue to build projects without a constant flow of panels.

“We’re at least three — probably five years away from having a truly viable national solar economy that can meet our needs,” Sterling said.

“You can’t just crush an entire industry trying to stop climate change,” he added.

Don’t miss a thing. Sign up here to receive VTDigger’s weekly energy industry and environment email.

]]>
Edinburgh introduces electric vehicle point charges https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/15/edinburgh-introduces-electric-vehicle-point-charges/ Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:10:29 +0000 https://ukremb-tm.org/2022/04/15/edinburgh-introduces-electric-vehicle-point-charges/

Edinburgh City Council has announced new costs to be introduced for electric vehicle charging stations.

Costs for using electric vehicle chargers owned and supplied by the council are due to be introduced on Sunday 1 May.

The charges, which will be displayed at existing charging points, were agreed as part of the budgeting process earlier this year.

The council said any revenue generated will be used to fund ongoing costs associated with electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

The council worked on introducing 81 Chargers to the city. Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash

In March, the council began work to introduce 81 charging stations on residential streets and park-and-rides around the city, which will be available for use by summer.

The rollout is being funded by £2.3m awarded through Transport Scotland’s Switched on Towns and Cities Challenge Fund.

Charges and maximum stays will depend on the type of charger, with full details available on the Council’s website.

Councilor Lesley Macinnes, responsible for transport and the environment, said: “We are in the process of introducing even more electric vehicle charging stations in the city.

“[These] will provide quick and convenient extra charging for people living in and traveling to and from the city.

“Increasing this kind of infrastructure is key to helping people switch to more sustainable modes of transport, like electric cars, which is vital if we are to go net zero by 2030.

“Any revenue generated from fees introduced next month will help us maintain and continue to grow our charging network.”

Councilor Karen Doran, Vice President of Transportation and Environment, said, “It’s really encouraging that so many people are choosing to switch to electric vehicles, and we want to help even more people make that choice.

“We have set the costs for using our chargers as part of this year’s budget, and the rates will be clearly displayed at charging stations and on our website.”

]]>