Joe Biden's Solar Panel Tariffs Are a National Security Threat, Says Joe Biden
Biden should stop layering new, contradictory orders into the market and simply get government out of the way.

It's not every day that you see a president declare some of his administration's own policies to be a national security risk.
But that's exactly what President Joe Biden did on Monday, as he invoked the Defense Production Act to "accelerate domestic production" of solar panels and other clean energy projects. "Solar photovoltaic modules and module components," Biden declared on Monday, are "essential to the national defense."
"Without presidential action," Biden continued, the "United States industry cannot reasonably be expected to provide the capability for the needed industrial resource, material, or critical technology item in a timely manner."
That is to say: The president invoked executive power in an attempt to increase the supply of solar panels in America—and he did it just four months after invoking executive power to decrease the supply of solar panels in America.
Let's flash back to February. That's when a series of tariffs on solar panels (and component parts) originally imposed by the Trump administration were set to expire. Rather than letting them simply fade away, Biden re-upped the tariffs (at a rate of over 14 percent) for the next four years. He did that despite ample warnings from the solar industry about the toll that the tariffs had already extracted: a net loss of 6,000 solar manufacturing jobs and an overall loss of about 62,000 solar industry jobs as a whole, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group.
Biden plowed ahead anyway. It was a decision that effectively prioritized domestic solar panel production over other aspects of the solar industry—like installation. Domestic producers are, in theory anyway, the beneficiaries of tariffs that make goods manufactured in other countries more expensive to import, which means people will buy fewer of them. Now that people are buying fewer solar panels, Biden has declared this to be a national emergency that requires the use of executive powers intended for wartime.
It makes absolutely zero sense. If you want a lot of solar panels installed in the United States—something the White House definitely wants, as it has set a goal of having solar energy account for half of all American energy production by 2050—then it shouldn't matter where those panels come from. A solar panel made in South Korea is just as good at providing green energy as one made in Georgia. And there's literally not enough solar panel production in the U.S. to meet rising demand.
If you're a president who wants to see more solar energy in America, that should be great news! All you have to do is nothing and let a combination of foreign and domestic suppliers help meet domestic demand.
That's why Biden's decision in February made little sense—unless you were one of the politically powerful but economically unimportant domestic solar panel producers that have been pulling the strings on U.S. solar panel trade policy for the past few years.
One of those companies, Georgia-based Suniva, told the Trump administration in 2017 that tariffs on foreign-made solar panels would spur domestic manufacturing and help create an estimated 114,000 new American jobs. Five years later, as Biden was mulling an extension to those tariffs, Suniva was once again on the front lines of lobbying for protectionism—despite seemingly having ceased to exist as a company that actually manufactures anything. As Reason has previously detailed, Suniva has gone through bankruptcy, shuttered its Atlanta facility, and hasn't updated its website since 2017.
By prioritizing solar panel producers, which account for a small minority of jobs in the industry, while increasing costs for installers and sellers, the Biden and Trump administrations have worked together to suffocate much of the solar industry.
There are real consequences to be seen. In Hawaii, for example, a solar developer pulled out of two major projects due to uncertainty about supply chains and costs—both factors that tariffs aren't helping. Meanwhile, higher costs have forced an Indiana-based electric generation company to postpone plans to use solar to partially replace a coal-fired power plant.
It's far from clear how Biden's use of the Defense Production Act will address these problems. For that matter, it's not clear how Biden's use of the Defense Production Act is even appropriate—it's a law meant to be used during wartime, not a convenient way for a president to centrally plan a sector of the economy (that he's simultaneously trying to sabotage with a different set of powers). It's also not a magic wand that a president can use to make the consequences of other policies vanish into thin air.
Like most industries that involve building things, the solar industry in America needs two conditions to grow: reliable supply chains to provide access to goods produced anywhere in the world and greater private investment. Tariffs make the former more complicated and expensive while introducing uncertainty that scares away the latter.
If Biden wants to "accelerate domestic production," he should stop layering new, contradictory orders into the market and simply get government out of the way.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/us-national-gas-average-approaches-5-little-demand-destruction-emerges
Every tariff is sacred, every tariff is great.
If a tariff gets repealed God get quite irate!
Biden should stop layering new, contradictory orders into the market and simply get government out of the way.
You're kidding me, right? Why do these articles feel like we're giving Joe Biden breezy, friendly advice? There was literally NOTHING in Joe Biden's platform in the runup to the 2020 election that suggested, even in passing, that Government would "get out of the way".
This is simply not going to happen in a Biden administration.
"But Trump Trump Trumpy Trump Trump Trump!"
The Biden administration runs on the 24 hour news cycle. Strategic thinking covers the weekend.
Usually a few months behind the air date.
"Biden should stop layering new, contradictory orders into the market and simply get government out of the way."
Eric, is there ANY part of the democrat party platform you have actually read?
This goes under "promises made, promises kept".
The irony being that without subsidies to solar the market would largely go back to coal and oil. Some barriers are better than others apparently.
^THIS +1000000000000000
"Biden should stop layering new, contradictory orders into the market and simply get government out of the way."
Now just what kind of Democrat would Biden be if he believed "government [should get] out of the way?" No, he believes government should increasingly be involved in every aspect of our lives.
I'm no fan of tariffs, but if an emerging industry that is going to revolutionize energy, I don't see how it's costing the industry so many jobs. With all the subsidies and tax credits, "green energy" is still nowhere near self-sufficient.
It does seem condratictory that world wide production can't keep up with demand by US manufacture are going bankrupt. Probably just a poorly sourced/written article.
The whole "green" industry seems that way. There were a bunch of layoffs from the turbine companies a few months ago. If they can't make it under current circumstances, they're more fucked that I thought.
We have global use cases in this transition with countries like Spain and Germany as well.
IOW, you have no principles, and your pragmatic side is in thrall to The State.
Glory to The State! Long Live The State!
It also does not provide what is actually needed, namely consistent on-demand energy. Run an electric grid heavily on solar or wind and you have outages and blackouts guaranteed.
https://twitter.com/Forbes/status/1533817998439501828?t=Cl4V5hcNbjreBtQF2RCcIQ&s=19
The Biden Administration and the E.P.A. recently decided to require a larger amount of ethanol to be blended into gasoline in an effort to increase domestic fuel supplies and lower gasoline prices. Here's what critics have to say about it:
[Link]
theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/06/06/biden-administration-quietly-raised-amount-of-ethanol-required-in-gasoline-from-ten-percent-to-fifteen-three-predictable-problems-will-surface-soon/
without having done much research, isn't it the case that adding ethanol results in a greater relative reduction in fuel efficiency than it does in cost, essentially making it MORE expensive?
plus more ethanol eats up engines afaik
without having done much research, isn't it the case that adding ethanol results in a greater relative reduction in fuel efficiency than it does in cost, essentially making it MORE expensive?
And less efficient emissions-wise, too, but Climate Change is only a crisis in certain circumstances, not so much in others.
It also takes a gallon of oil to make a gallon of grain ethanol, with the fertilizer, pesticides, tractors, plows, combines, transport via truck to the refinery, etc
Time for the Defense Production Act to be repealed.
Agreed. Now let's pick up where we left off last night.
I believe you said:
"...the whole point of sports competitions in the first place is to have a *fair competition*. Discrimination by sex is not necessary to generate teams of roughly equal ability in order to have a fair competition."
Get a group of people who are exactly the same BMI, and put them into sporting challenges. In the vast majority of those challenges, the quickest way to group for "fair" competition is the biological sex of the people. That is just a biological fact.
So I really want to know, Chemjeff. Why is it ok to segregate competitors based on one set of biological traits (such as weight or height) but not other biological traits (such as the number of Y chromosomes in their genome)? We know for a fact that this creates "fair" playing fields. Why can we no longer do this?
To be fair jeff most likely never played sports. So he doesn't understand physical differences between men and women are much more than just BMI but also muscle density and bone structure.
muscle density and bone structure
It goes well beyond muscle density and bone structure as well. Male cardiac volume and output is categorically different than women's. Similar (predictably) with respiratory throughput. There are psychological factors that confound or catalyze these issues as well. Men are more likely to risk the extra effort to develop their bodies to for a larger chance to win. Women are less likely to take the same risk and, even if they were willing to take the same risk, would be less likely to take the risk based on the relatively lesser chance of winning against men. That is to say, there are sports where women have absolute physiological advantages, we don't see women flocking to those sports, we see them flocking to women's versions of "male" sports and taking lesser risks to attain guaranteed outcomes (or incomes) rather than necessarily being better athletes or competitors.
Okay. Imagine the following hypothetical exercise.
Suppose you had a mathematical formula, that took as inputs various physical characteristics of two athletes (or two teams), and the output of the formula was the probability that the two athletes (or teams) would yield a "fair" competition (for whatever definition of "fair" that you choose).
Various inputs to this formula might be quantities like the sexes of the athletes, the weight, the height, the age, the running speed, the vertical leap distance, the testosterone levels, etc.
Would you use this formula to decide how competitions are organized in a particular sport, INSTEAD OF the current method which is to separate athletes by much cruder measures, such as sex alone, or by weight alone?
After all, using weight alone doesn't work, as evidenced by your UFC example.
Also, using sex alone doesn't necessarily work. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)
So let's organize competitions between athletes using this basic idea. It does not resort to discrimination based on sex, when such sex-based discrimination is NOT NECESSARY. It takes into account the OVERALL abilities of individual athletes REGARDLESS of their sex, or weight, or height, alone. That is what I'm trying to argue.
Sis you really pull up the Billy Jean King example? A ranked 400 men's tennis player who has said in interviews he was drinking and kind of told to throw it?
Why not use the most recent example of the Williams sister getting her ass kicked by an average pro?
https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,543962,00.html
"Also, using sex alone doesn't necessarily work. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)"
What exactly do you think this proves? These are generally women at the prime of their career, competing against near-retirees and/or with rules that heavily favor the female such as spotting them points. These games PROVE that there is a major disparity between the sexes.
"So let's organize competitions between athletes using this basic idea. It does not resort to discrimination based on sex, when such sex-based discrimination is NOT NECESSARY. "
Help me understand this a bit better. You say that your maths can keep women safe and represented in sports without simply fielding female and male teams. How would this work for, say, collegiate swimming?
The USA Swim Association says the best college age women swim the 100M Breast Stroke in about 1:14. The top 13-14 year old boys are swimming it in 1:12. So the only way it seems you could allow these women to be on college team is to make them swim against...boys at the local middle school?
Yesterday you were complaining that the Ohio legislature was over-complicating sports by forcing girls to get a genetic test to prove they are women for a problem representing "less than 0.1% of the population". But aren't you doing the exact same thing? You are looking to blow up sports as we have known it for decades, in order to allow trans athletes to compete.
And by the way, it is not even clear these trans athletes would be able to compete. The current trans women dominating in the Women's circuit were middling competitors in the Men's circuit. So if your goal was to create some sort of math that allowed biological Women representation in sports, those trans women probably would be excluded.
The USWNT. New millionaires all, got blown out by a squad of local Dallas 14yo boys
Why don't people who are good at tennis compete against others who are good at tennis, and those who are bad at tennis compete against others who are bad at tennis? And all the in-betweens? And the same for swimming?
Serious question or do you think good tennis players and swimmers just emerge from a lake, clad in shimmering silmite?
But aren't you doing the exact same thing? You are looking to blow up sports as we have known it for decades, in order to allow trans athletes to compete.
Not the same, worse. The genetic testing is only in the case of gender disputes by (female) competitors. So, inconveniencing 30% of competitors to appease 0.1%.
WTHF.
One is (not really) inconveniencing < 0.01% of competitors to appease a vast majority whereas dissolving female sports is (more than just inconveniencing > 30% of competitors to appease a smaller fraction.
An even better way is to segregate by ability or record in that particular sport. It's so true it's tautologic! Segregate by ability in a sport, and you've segregated by ability in that sport.
It's so true it's tautologic!
It's only a tautology if you assume chemjeff's proposed equation to be impossible to even attempt and/or that any competition happens inside an unobservable black box. Otherwise, you can measure one competitor's age, training age, height, weight, muscle mass, lung volume, sex, etc., etc., etc. and have an exceedingly good idea of who will win without hosting a competition.
https://twitter.com/JesseKellyDC/status/1534242515917864960?t=uQjHVypz1rBJIYm9FxbjeQ&s=19
Joe Biden invoking the Defense Production Act to payoff his “green energy” donors while Americans are being slaughtered by high gas prices is an impeachable offense.
I am trying to understand how Biden now constantly resorting to giving orders to industry to meet certain production goals is not corporatist dictatorship.
Good intentions.
Not just Biden.
You are right. Obama *was* pretty bad too.
Private ownership of means of production with government dictating what to produce? Isn't that economic system called fascism?
https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1534242146697748481?t=i4yMnxbMqEjRdrVjrTl3ng&s=19
Democrat gloats: "I drove my electric vehicle from Michigan to here this last weekend and went by every single gas station and it didn’t matter how high it was."
[Link]
I'm quickly reminded of Colbert saying a similar thing on his show the other month - “Today, the average gas price in America hit an all-time record high of over $4 per gallon. Okay, that stings, but a clear conscience is worth a buck or two,” said Colbert, whose contract with CBS pays him an annual salary of $15 million per year.
“I’m willing to pay. I’m willing to pay $4 a gallon. Hell, I’ll pay $15 a gallon because I drive a Tesla.”
Until the rolling brownouts come.
He'll move to Montana and screech from there.
How is his tesla going to get him anywhere here without adding an extra two hours minimum to his journey? I've had this discussion with Soldiermedic before and it's kinda nuts unless you stay within your city here.
Travel is seditious!
Also, it's the gun control argument. Evelyn uses the Tesla to go to the salon at 2 in the afternoon. The nanny and doordash drivers use Corollas and the studio uses a fleet of Lincolns.
Until the rolling brownouts come.
The rolling blackouts don't hit the sorts of neighborhoods that Colbert lives in.
"Without presidential action," Biden continued, the "United States industry cannot reasonably be expected to provide the capability for the needed industrial resource, material, or critical technology item in a timely manner."
How exactly Joe Biden determines what the economy "needs" remains a mystery. We just know it's not the market that makes the determination, Milton Friedman is not running the show anymore.
Electricity from domestic-made solar panels is better for you and full of democracy and equality, unlike Chinese panels, which make electricity that emits Communism and genocide.
And where exactly are we mining the materials for these solar panels? Last I checked there was only one mine (not sure if it’s even a production) in USA, CA that produced rare earth minerals.
Hey, guess who made the front page, above the fold in my local newspaper, go ahead guess? (And no, this time it wasn't former Reason alumnus Dave Weigel for his sexist, problematic tweets.)
Don Cheadle?
Don't know why, but that's the name that popped into my head
TRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMPPPPP!
C'mon, he's really just Don Cheadle in orangeface
Removing barriers to domestic energy production would be far more useful here.
This reminds me of being in an abusive relationship.
https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1534265940723896320?t=cBHhp5iCkfw6z8KbylS3dg&s=19
55% of American Adults believe it is likely the United States will enter a 1930s-like depression over the next few years, including 25% who think another Great Depression is Very Likely...
[Link]
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1534216833116561410?t=j9Gwlb_CNtxM0160F7ZbpQ&s=19
A child drag queen performs provocatively at a bar as the adult audience cheer him on and hand him money
[Link]
Really makes you question who women think they are to refute Dave Weigel.
>>and simply get government out of the way.
'A' for enthusiasm but government exists to be in the way. especially (R) but especially (D).
Just in time for Bidens announcement.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy-environment/us-solar-industry-sees-worst-quarter-since-2020
Don't you guys understand progressive economics? Here's a primer:
1. Costs, prices, and wages are not coupled to each other in any way, and not affected by policies, laws, and taxes.
2. Costs, prices, and wages are thus arbitrary numbers that can be set in favor of Good People by government declaration, before they are set by evil capitalists to screw Good People.
3. Laws and policies are sufficient to direct just about everything in the economy, especially jobs, consumer goods, and business activity. These can be micro- and macro-managed by edict.
4. If any progressive policies fail to deliver or lead to unexpected consequences, that is the fault of underhanded capitalists and uncooperative people.
To be fair sleepy joe’s war on oil and gas has increased my income by $$$$/month in royalties. I’ll take it. And I used some of that earlier to install solar on my house and get a %30 tax credit.
This country is friggin nuts.
"It's a National Security Threat to have Free-Markets", Every Democrat (Nazi-National Socialist)....