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)
Aug 27, 2015
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, saidThursday. "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 The outdated trade rules on the books now and under negotiation in trade pacts, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment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 January 20th, it begins...
Political revenge. Mass deportations. Project 2025. Unfathomable corruption. Attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Pardons for insurrectionists. An all-out assault on democracy. Republicans in Congress are scrambling to give Trump broad new powers to strip the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit he doesn’t like by declaring it a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Trump has already begun filing lawsuits against news outlets that criticize him. At Common Dreams, we won’t back down, but we must get ready for whatever Trump and his thugs throw at us. Our Year-End campaign is our most important fundraiser of the year. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. By donating today, please help us fight the dangers of a second Trump presidency. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
climate actionclimate crisisenvironmentfossil fuelsindialaborrenewable energyrenewablessierra clubsolar powertpptrans-pacific partnershipttipworld trade organization
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, saidThursday. "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."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
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, saidThursday. "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."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.