US Sets Tariffs of Up to 3,521% on SE Asia Solar Panels

Tuesday, April 22, 2025

The US Commerce Department has announced plans to impose tariffs of up to 3,521% on imports of solar panels from four South East Asian countries.

Posted by REDIAL at 04:32 PM | 32 COMMENTS | permalink

US to impose tariffs of up to 3,521% on South East Asia solar panels

[image or embed]
-- Guardian Australia (@australia.theguardian.com) April 22, 2025 at 4:48 AM

Comments

SE Asian countries don't make solar panels - these are Chinese panels with label switching to hide their origin.

#1 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-04-22 07:08 PM

Make it a million, ------.

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-04-22 10:10 PM

"#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead"

So long as Trump does not put a tariff on pretend law school tuition, you will be fine.

#3 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-04-22 10:36 PM

Drill baby drill! Oil wins when we lose the chance to go solar! So their bought and paid for politicians will do everything to make solar energy too expensive; big ninner? Global warming!

#4 | Posted by danni at 2025-04-22 10:46 PM

"So their bought and paid for politicians will do everything to make solar energy too expensive; big ninner? Global warming!
#4 | Posted by danni"

So you agree that Biden was bought and paid for? Or, do you only whine when Trump does it?

www.utilitydive.com

#5 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-04-22 10:55 PM

#3 | POSTED BY SCOTTS

So long as Trump does not put a tariff on Russian trolls, you will be fine.

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-04-22 10:55 PM

"So long as Trump does not put a tariff on Russian trolls, you will be fine.
#6 | Posted by ClownShack"

I am fine even if he did as that would not apply to me.

#7 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-04-22 10:58 PM

Over 3000%? That seems overly excessive.

#8 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-04-22 11:57 PM

"So their bought and paid for politicians will do everything to make solar energy too expensive; big ninner? Global warming!
#4 | Posted by danni"

The irony of defending Chinese solar panels to prevent global warming is the manufacture is both a humanitarian and environmental nightmare.

As a result, a recent study found that solar panels manufactured in China produce 30% more greenhouse gas emissions than if this supply chain was reshored to the U.S.
time.com

#9 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-04-22 11:59 PM

Over 3000%? That seems overly excessive.
#8 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Not to save the environment.

#10 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-04-22 11:59 PM

Perhaps you weren't here Scotts but I was totally against Biden's tariffs on Chinese EVs. I said let China build cheap EVs and sell as many here as Americans want to buy; the more the better. Our real most dangerous threat doesn't come from China or any other nation; it comes from climate change though I do know that Florida's lunatic governor has decided those two words may not appear in any state documents but hey!, he also wants to rewrite history and leave out any parts that make white people, in our past, look bad; much like Donald Trump in that regard!

#11 | Posted by danni at 2025-04-23 12:15 AM

"Perhaps you weren't here Scotts but I was totally against Biden's tariffs on Chinese EVs.
#11 | Posted by danni"

My link was on solar panels directly - I am pretty sure that was not even covered on this site as it is 180 degrees away from the Democrat talking point.

As to EVs - given climate change is your biggest concern - what should be done to people vandalizing Teslas as domestic terrorists trying to scare away adoption of the most successful EV company in the world?

#12 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-04-23 02:15 AM

Over 3000%? That seems overly excessive.

That's how you kill solar energy and bring back coal.

Which. Trump seems to want for some reason.

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-04-23 02:15 AM

that would not apply to me.
#7 | POSTED BY SCOTTS

Russian troll claims to not be a Russian troll.

Surprise Surprise.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-04-23 02:17 AM

Oh nice. It's like if a librard President raised the minimum wage to $100/hr. Republicans are gonna love defending this!

At these rates, thieves are going to be taking solar panels off roofs when people go away in vacation. LOL!

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-23 02:23 AM

Natural gas is where it's at. It's clean and we are the Saudi Arabia of it.

#16 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-04-23 02:31 AM

We've been at Natural Gas for about 35 years now, JeffJ.

We need an actual new thing.

You wouldn't understand.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-23 02:36 AM

Natural gas, oil and nuclear are our current best sources of energy. Wanna sell solar panels and windmills? Fine. ZERO government subsidies and ZERO mandates. See how long that lasts.

Investing in loser energy technology is stupid.

Until we have a new energy technological breakthrough the best current sources will succeed. See above.

#18 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-04-23 02:55 AM

"At these rates, thieves are going to be taking solar panels off roofs when people go away in vacation. LOL!
#15 | Posted by snoofy"

Snoofy - you have already proven you have no idea about business and trade on the last thread - there is no need for you to keep proving your ignorance on the topic.

First, without subsidies, only a total idiot would even consider buying solar panels and the subsidy will not apply to stolen units. Second, although the price of imported panels will increase - NO ONE will buy them. So the value of the existing panels does not go up by 30x. The will go up low single digits because any price increase over than makes them stupid to buy even with the subsidy. Yes, I know - the people buying them are doing so for religious reasons and not financial ones - but, these people tend to be a combination of poor and stupid and will still need to get financing to buy them.

#19 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-04-23 03:20 AM

"Natural gas, oil and nuclear are our current best sources of energy."

Best at what?

"ZERO government subsidies and ZERO mandates."

You are so stupid and so lazy, you don't realize natgas, oil, and nuclear are all subsidized by the government.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-23 09:02 AM

"You are so stupid and so lazy, you don't realize natgas, oil, and nuclear are all subsidized by the government.
#20 | Posted by snoofy"

20 years ago, I would have agreed with you and majority of the US military spending was in support of GOP led wars in the middle east for oil. But now, the Dems don't want the oil but still want forever war so I don't think I can include the US military spending as an oil subsidy.

#21 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-04-23 09:14 AM

" 'Natural gas, oil and nuclear are our current best sources of energy.'

Best at what?

'ZERO government subsidies and ZERO mandates.'

You are so stupid and so lazy, you don't realize natgas, oil, and nuclear are all subsidized by the government.
#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-23 09:02 AM"

BINGO!!!!

Subsidies to promote fledgling industries is nothing new and (in concept) is prudent. In the case of petroleum development, subsidies are a way of 'priming the pump' (so to speak!). I wonder how many folks are aware of how much subsidies are still being given to the petroleum industry after more than a CENTURY! The amount is more than a TRILLION dollars. Can we at least agree petroleum development is no longer a "fledgling industry"?

To claim our society should not provide even a small fraction of the amount (in both time and $$$) that the petroleum industry receives to develop new energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc.), is ludicrous.

www.fractracker.org

#22 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2025-04-23 09:31 AM

#22. The problem with the oil industry subsidies is those industries generate more in Tex revenue than they receive in subsidies.

The same cannot be said for current so-called green energy. Wind mills and solar panels are incapable of meeting anywhere close to our energy needs and are comparatively far less reliable and far more expensive.

#23 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-04-25 11:22 AM

#23 | Posted by BellRinger

They could meet most of energy needs.

And we could use cleaner forms of energy for the remainder.

But no, we have to prop up the dying coal industry to make Jeff feel better. #SAD

#24 | Posted by Sycophant at 2025-04-25 11:36 AM

" They could meet most of energy needs"

Pure ignorance on your part. No, they can't. Not in their current form. I'm a realist on this. When government artifically jacks up the cost of energy and it comes with rolling black puts people begin to csr3 a lot less about global warming (already near the bottom of the list of issues Americans in terms of importance).

You are the one talking about propping up primitive forms of energy because it makes you feel morally superior. It's not grounded in reality but that is par for the course with you. Coal is losing out to natural gas because it's dirtier than natural gas and is more costly to transport. We have an abundance of both but the market favors natural gas for obvious reasons.

#25 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-04-25 02:24 PM

Oh lovely. More anti wind and solar rhetoric from the usual suspect. Why am I NOT surprised??

#26 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-04-25 02:28 PM

It's called being realistic, Laura Mohr.

#27 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-04-25 02:36 PM

I'm a borderline Hall of Fame troll, Alexandrite. I easily elicit multiple responses with a single post. And it doesn't take any effort.
#27 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-04-06 05:42 PM

#28 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-04-25 03:00 PM

I'm a borderline Hall of Fame troll, Alexandrite. I easily elicit multiple responses with a single post. And it doesn't take any effort.
#27 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-04-06 05:42 PM

#29 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-04-25 03:00 PM

I'm a borderline Hall of Fame troll, Alexandrite. I easily elicit multiple responses with a single post. And it doesn't take any effort.
#27 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-04-06 05:42 PM

#30 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-04-25 03:00 PM

It's called being realistic, Laura Mohr.

#27 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-04-25 02:36 PM | Reply

No. It's called being a shill for the fossil fuels industry. That's all.

#31 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-04-25 03:28 PM

I could just as easily accuse you of being a shill for Wind and solar.

#32 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-04-25 03:52 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Trump Backs Off China Tariffs (183 comments)

Trump Plans to Accept $400 Million Jet from Qatar (79 comments)

Homicides in Big Cities kept Declining in Q1 of 2025, stats show (44 comments)

Republicans Unveil Steep Cuts to Medicaid (40 comments)

First White South Africans Flying to US Under Trump Refugee Plan (30 comments)

Beef Prices Soar Under Trump (28 comments)

Tesla Driver Arrested Again for Road Rage and Assault (21 comments)

Kash Patel Isn't Taking FBI Director Role Seriously (20 comments)

Trump Illegally Fires Democrats on Consumer Product Safety Commission (16 comments)