The Conversation – Page 2 – Green Lifestyle Market

Study Shows BPA Substitutes May Cause Same Health Issues As The Original

(The Conversation) The credibility of scientific findings hinges on their reproducibility. As a scientist, it is therefore disastrous when you are unable to replicate your own findings. Our laboratory has found itself in just this situation several times; in each instance, unintended environmental exposure distorted our data. Our first accidental foray into toxicology 20 years ago convinced us of the need to understand the reproductive effects of environmental chemical contaminants. The latest twist in our journey down that road adds a new dimension to an old concern, BPA.

Bisphenol A, or BPA, is a man-made chemical that has become a household word. It is a plasticizer used in such a wide range of consumer products that daily exposure is inevitable. People absorb BPA through our skin – from receipts and contamination of personal care products and water. We ingest it via contamination from plastic food containers, and food and beverage liners. We even inhale it as a contaminant in dust. Studies of this chemical number in the thousands, but whether BPA is hazardous to our health remains “controversial.” Here’s why: Although data from traditional toxicology testing provide little or no evidence of harm, independent investigators like us have reported effects induced by very low doses thought to be in the realm of human exposure.

Related: How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors

The implications of these low-dose effects for human health and reproduction captured media attention and increased consumer unease. In response, manufacturers introduced BPA replacements by producing structurally similar bisphenols. As a result, it no longer is simply BPA contaminating our environment but an ever-increasing array of bisphenols. Our recent studies of several replacements suggest effects on the production of eggs and sperm similar to those induced by BPA.

We stumbled into the BPA world 20 years ago when cages housing mice for our studies were damaged when inadvertently washed with a detergent intended for the floor. Unbeknownst to us the detergent caused BPA to leach out of the cages. We happened to be studying eggs from young females and saw an immediate increase in eggs with scrambled chromosomes that would give rise to chromosomally abnormal embryos. In the intervening 20 years, our studies and those of colleagues have described the effects of BPA exposure on the developing brain, heart, lung, prostate, mammary gland and other tissues, and our studies have described serious effects on the production of both eggs and sperm. Together these findings inflamed debate about the safety of BPA and resulted in the rapid appearance of “BPA free” products.

Remarkably, almost exactly 20 years after the BPA exposure of our mice, we recently found ourselves, once again, victim of an environmental contamination that halted our research. We were working to pinpoint the critical windows of BPA exposure when we noticed that something was interfering with our experiments. This time the effect was harder to run to ground: Again, it appeared to be due to cage damage, but the damage was milder, limited to a subset of cages, and the effect on our results was evident in some animals and not others.

Related: Microplastics in Sea Salt – A Growing Concern

The major culprit this time was not BPA but the replacement bisphenol, BPS, leaching from damaged polysulfone caging. Knowing what it was didn’t make eliminating it easy. We tried several less expensive methods to solve the problem, but ultimately had to replace all the cages and water bottles in the facility. When we could resume our studies, we experimentally tested four common replacement bisphenols and found effects on sperm and egg production in our mice analogous to those that result from BPA exposure.

The possibility that exposure effects may span generations has been a growing concern. Our recent experience with accidental exposure allowed us to ask if BPS exposure effects persisted across generations, and if so, for how long. Our data suggest persistence of effects for up to three generations, with full recovery evident in great-grandsons.

Widespread use of BPA-like chemicals

Do we simply have bad lab karma? No, we think we have supersensory powers. The process of making eggs and sperm is tightly controlled by complex hormone signals. This makes it vulnerable to endocrine-disrupting chemicals like bisphenols – chemicals that can interfere with our body’s hormones. Bisphenol contaminants cause a seismic shift in our data, but it’s not that the research of others isn’t also affected, but most remain blissfully ignorant.

Importantly, our laboratory knew what data from unexposed animals should look like. What if we hadn’t? We would have misinterpreted our results. If we had been asking if BPA had an effect, background bisphenol contamination would have diminished it, causing us to conclude that BPA had little or no effect.

This isn’t merely hypothetical. BPA use is so prevalent in consumer products and routine laboratory materials (like mouse caging materials or culture flasks) that low-level contamination of unexposed control groups is increasingly difficult to avert. Data and conclusions from CLARITY-BPA, a large, ambitious collaborative study conducted by three U.S. agencies, are coming out now. CLARITY was launched to understand why findings from traditional toxicology studies of BPA and those of independent investigators differ. Animal contamination was evident in a pilot study, but the source could not be determined, and the CLARITY initiative proceeded.

Related: Many Hand-me-down Plastic Toys Are Toxic for Kids

Given our experience, we have great concern about drawing any conclusions from CLARITY data because there is no way to determine the impact of low-level contamination.

The bisphenol story details the evolution of only one class of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are common contaminants in our lives. The ability of manufacturers to rapidly modify chemicals to produce structurally similar replacements undermines the ability of consumers to protect themselves from hazardous chemicals and federal efforts to regulate them.

As a canary whose research has been twice derailed by bisphenols, we feel the need to chirp loudly: These contaminants may not only affect our health, but also our ability to conduct meaningful studies of chemicals to determine if and how they impact on our health and the environment.

Patricia Hunt, Professor of Molecular Biosciences, Washington State University and Tegan Horan, Washington State University

What the world needs now to fight climate change: More swamps

(The Conversation) “Drain the swamp” has long meant getting rid of something distasteful. Actually, the world needs more swamps – and bogs, fens, marshes and other types of wetlands.

These are some of the most diverse and productive ecosystems on Earth. They also are underrated but irreplaceable tools for slowing the pace of climate change and protecting our communities from storms and flooding.

Scientists widely recognize that wetlands are extremely efficient at pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and converting it into living plants and carbon-rich soil. As part of a transdisciplinary team of nine wetland and climate scientists, we published a paper earlier this year that documents the multiple climate benefits provided by all types of wetlands, and their need for protection.

Related: Air Pollution Causes People to Lose A Year of Education

Saltwater wetland, Waquoit Bay Estuarine Research Reserve, Mass. Ariana Sutton-Grier, CC BY-ND

A vanishing resource

For centuries human societies have viewed wetlands as wastelands to be “reclaimed” for higher uses. China began large-scale alteration of rivers and wetlands in 486 B.C. when it started constructing the Grand Canal, still the longest canal in the world. The Dutch drained wetlands on a large scale beginning about 1,000 years ago, but more recently have restored many of them. As a surveyor and land developer, George Washington led failed efforts to drain the Great Dismal Swamp on the border between Virginia and North Carolina.

Today many modern cities around the world are built on filled wetlands. Large-scale drainage continues, particularly in parts of Asia. Based on available data, total cumulative loss of natural wetlands is estimated to be 54 to 57 percent – an astounding transformation of our natural endowment.

Vast stores of carbon have accumulated in wetlands, in some cases over thousands of years. This has reduced atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and methane – two key greenhouse gases that are changing Earth’s climate. If ecosystems, particularly forests and wetlands, did not remove atmospheric carbon, concentrations of carbon dioxide from human activities would increase by 28 percent more each year.

Wetland soil core taken from Todd Gulch Fen at 10,000 feet in the Colorado Rockies. The dark, carbon-rich core is about 3 feet long. Living plants at its top provide thermal insulation, keeping the soil cold enough that decomposition by microbes is very slow. William Moomaw, Tufts University, CC BY-ND

From carbon sinks to carbon sources

Wetlands continuously remove and store atmospheric carbon. Plants take it out of the atmosphere and convert it into plant tissue, and ultimately into soil when they die and decompose. At the same time, microbes in wetland soils release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as they consume organic matter.

Related: Study Shows Cell Phone Towers Harmful To Animals, Plants – 5G Will Be Much Worse

Natural wetlands typically absorb more carbon than they release. But as the climate warms wetland soils, microbial metabolism increases, releasing additional greenhouse gases. In addition, draining or disturbing wetlands can release soil carbon very rapidly.

For these reasons, it is essential to protect natural, undisturbed wetlands. Wetland soil carbon, accumulated over millennia and now being released to the atmosphere at an accelerating pace, cannot be regained within the next few decades, which are a critical window for addressing climate change. In some types of wetlands, it can take decades to millennia to develop soil conditions that support net carbon accumulation. Other types, such as new saltwater wetlands, can rapidly start accumulating carbon.

Arctic permafrost, which is wetland soil that remains frozen for two consecutive years, stores nearly twice as much carbon as the current amount in the atmosphere. Because it is frozen, microbes cannot consume it. But today, permafrost is thawing rapidly, and Arctic regions that removed large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere as recently as 40 years ago are now releasing significant quantities of greenhouse gases. If current trends continue, thawing permafrost will release as much carbon by 2100 as all U.S. sources, including power plants, industry and transportation.

Kuujjuarapik is a region underlain by permafrost in Northern Canada. Nigel Roulet, McGill University., CC BY-ND

Climate services from wetlands

In addition to capturing greenhouse gases, wetlands make ecosystems and human communities more resilient in the face of climate change. For example, they store flood waters from increasingly intense rainstorms. Freshwater wetlands provide water during droughts and help cool surrounding areas when temperatures are elevated.

Salt marshes and mangrove forests protect coasts from hurricanes and storms. Coastal wetlands can even grow in height as sea level rises, protecting communities further inland.

Saltwater mangrove forest along the coast of the Biosphere Reserve in Sian Ka’an, Mexico. Ariana Sutton-Grier, CC BY-ND

But wetlands have received little attention from climate scientists and policymakers. Moreover, many wetland managers do not fully understand or integrate climate considerations into their work.

The most important international treaty for the protection of wetlands is the Ramsar Convention, which does not include provisions to conserve wetlands as a climate change strategy. While some national and subnational governments effectively protect wetlands, few do this within the context of climate change.

Forests rate their own section (Article 5) in the Paris climate agreement that calls for protecting and restoring tropical forests in developing countries. A United Nations process called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degraded Forests, or REDD+ promises funding for developing countries to protect existing forests, avoid deforestation and restore degraded forests. While this covers forested wetlands and mangroves, it was not until 2016 that a voluntary provision for reporting emissions from wetlands was introduced into the U.N. climate accounting system, and only a small number of governments have taken advantage of it.

Models for wetland protection

Although global climate agreements have been slow to protect wetland carbon, promising steps are starting to occur at lower levels.

Ontario, Canada has passed legislation that is among the most protective of undeveloped lands by any government. Some of the province’s most northern peatlands, which contain minerals and potential hydroelectric resources, are underlain by permafrost that could release greenhouse gases if disturbed. The Ontario Far North Act specifically states that more than 50 percent of the land north of 51 degrees latitude is to be protected from development, and the remainder can only be developed if the cultural, ecological (diversity and carbon sequestration) and social values are not degraded.

Also in Canada, a recent study reports large increases in carbon storage from a project that restored tidal flooding to a saltmarsh near Aulac, New Brunswick, on Canada’s Bay of Fundy. The marsh had been drained by a dike for 300 years, causing loss of soil and carbon. But just six years after the dike was breached, rates of carbon accumulation in the restored marsh averaged more than five times the rate reported for a nearby mature marsh.

In our view, instead of draining swamps and weakening protections, governments at all levels should take action immediately to conserve and restore wetlands as a climate strategy. Protecting the climate and avoiding climate-associated damage from storms, flooding and droughtis a much higher use for wetlands than altering them for short-term economic gains.

Microplastics may heat marine turtle nests and produce more female

A nest filled with sea turtle eggs. Kalaeva/shutterstock.com

(The Conversation) Have you ever considered that small pieces of plastic less than 5 millimeters long, or smaller than a pencil eraser head, called microplastics, can affect large marine vertebrates like sea turtles?

My research team first discovered this disturbing fact when we started to quantify the amount and type of microplastic at loggerhead nesting grounds in the northern Gulf of Mexico, between St. Joseph State Park and Alligator Point in Florida.

Microplastics, which are created by the breakdown of larger plastic pieces into smaller ones, or manufactured as microbeads or fibers for consumer products, can change the composition of sandy beaches where marine turtles nest. Marine turtles, which are listed under the Endangered Species Act, lay their eggs in coastal areas, and the environment in which their eggs incubate can influence hatching success, the gender and size of hatchlings.

Related: How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors

In particular, the sex of marine turtle eggs is determined by the sand temperature during egg incubation. Warmer sand produces more females and cooler sand, more males. Temperatures between approximately 24-29.5 degrees C produce males and above 29.5 to 34 degrees C, females. Since plastics warm up when exposed to heat, when combined with sand, microplastics may increase the sand temperature, especially if the pigment of the plastic is dark. This could potentially affect the nesting environment of marine turtles, biasing the sex ratio of turtles toward producing only females and affecting the future reproductive success of the species.

Coastal areas and consequently marine turtle nesting environment exposed to microplastic may also be harmed by toxic chemicals that leach out of the microplastics when they are heated.

Newly hatched baby loggerhead turtle emerge from their nests and head straight toward the ocean. foryouinf/shutterstock.com

Given the potential impacts of microplastic on marine turtle incubating environment, we did a study to determine the microplastic exposure of the 10 most important nesting sites in Florida for the Northern Gulf of Mexico loggerhead subpopulation. Microplastic was found at all nesting sites, with the majority of pieces located at the dunes, the primary site where turtles nest.

We took several samples of sand at each nesting site during the Northern Hemisphere summer months, May to August, which is when turtles are nesting in the region.

Recommended: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

We are still unsure what the implications of these exposures are, and how much microplastic is needed to change the temperature of the nesting grounds. So, this summer we are expanding our experiments to explore how different densities and types of microplastic can affect the temperature of nesting grounds.

Regardless of the implications, it is important to consider that any alteration to our natural environment may be detrimental to species that rely on then. The good news is that there are several easy ways to reduce microplastic.

The research was conducted by undergraduate student Valencia Beckwith and Mariana Fuentes.

Air pollution from industrial shutdowns and startups worse than thought

(The Conversation) When Hurricane Harvey struck the Texas coast in August 2017, many industrial facilities had to shut down their operations before the storm arrived and restart once rainfall and flooding had subsided.

These shutdowns and startups, as well as accidents caused by the hurricane, led to a significant release of air pollutants. Over a period of about two weeks, data we compiled from the Texas’ Air Emission Event Report Database indicates these sites released 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and other pollutants.

These types of emissions that result from startups, shutdowns or malfunctions are often referred to as “excess” or “upset” emissions and are particularly pronounced during times of natural disasters, as was the case with Hurricane Harvey.

Recommended: Scientists Discover a Superbug With Undetectable Antibiotic Resistance

However, as we document in a newly published study in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, they also occur regularly during the routine operation of many industrial facilities, sometimes in large quantities. And, even if unintended or unavoidable, the pollutants released during these events are in violation of the U.S. Clean Air Act (CAA).

With the EPA now revisiting the rules regarding these air toxics, our study shows how significant they are to public health – and how historically they have not been systematically tracked across the country or regulated comprehensively.

Excess emissions in Texas

Our study examines the occurrence of excess emissions in industrial facilities in Texas over the period from 2002 to 2016. We focused on Texas because, unlike nearly all other states, it has established comprehensive reporting requirements. The state collects data on so-called hazardous air pollutants that cause harm to people exposed to them, such as benzene, as well as substances called criteria pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides that contribute to the formation of ozone.

As a general rule, states set limits to industrial air emissions based on provisions in their State Implementation Plan (SIP), which is their strategy for meeting CAA requirements. The EPA in turn is responsible for ensuring that each state’s SIP is drafted in accordance with the CAA.

The CAA requires sources of air pollution to achieve continuous emissions reductions, which in essence means companies need to install and maintain equipment to limit the release of pollutants that happen during routine operations.

Excess emissions occur when pollution abatement systems, such as scrubbers, baghouses, or flares that curtail emissions before they are released, fail to fully operate as the result of an unexpected malfunction, startup or shutdown. That is, a facility fails to maintain continuous emissions reductions, thereby exceeding its permit limits.

Recommended: Drinking Bottled Water Means Drinking Microplastics, According To Damning New Study

Although one might assume that such occurrences are rare, we found that excess emissions in Texas are frequent, sometimes large, and likely result in significant health damages for individuals living in communities near where these emissions are released.

Specifically, there are four important takeaways from our study.

First, excess emissions represent a sizeable share of permitted (or routine) emissions. In the case of the natural gas liquids industry, excess emissions amounted to 77 thousand tons over the period 2004-2015, representing 58 percent of the industry’s routine emissions for that pollutant. Refineries emitted 23 thousand tons of excess emissions (10 percent of their routine emissions of SO2) while oil and gas fields released 11 thousand tons (17 percent of their routine emissions of SO2).

Second, the distribution of excess emissions is highly skewed. While thousands of excess emissions events occur every year in Texas, the top 5 percent of events release more pollutants than all the other events combined. In extreme cases, excess emissions events can release vast amounts of pollutants in a very short period of time. In 2003, a Total oil refinery in Port Arthur emitted 1,296 tons of sulfur dioxide within 56 hours, due to a power outage caused by a lighting strike. That was almost twice the amount of the total sulfur dioxide that refinery emitted that year from its routine operations.

Third, several industrial sectors account for a disproportionate amount of excess emissions. Facilities in just five sectors – natural gas liquids, refineries, industrial organic chemicals, electric services and oil and natural gas fields – emit about 80 percent of all excess emissions from industrial facilities in Texas.

Estimated damages from air toxics from excess emissions by county. Reprinted with permission. Copyright (2018) American Chemical Society. Figure compiled by the authors using data from TCEQ, EASIUR, QGIS and Manson et al (2017)., Author provided (No reuse)

Moreover, a few facilities within each sector are responsible for the vast majority of excess emissions. For example, the top six oil refineries are responsible for 70 percent and 77 percent of the excess emissions of sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide, respectively, released from all 30 Texas refineries.

Finally, excess emissions have important health effects. Using a model that links pollution to mortality, we estimate that the health damages attributable to excess emissions in Texas between 2004-2015 averaged US$150 million annually. These estimates are certainly not comprehensive as they only consider damages from premature mortality due to particulate matter (PM) emissions caused by the emission of sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides.

The model does not account for the direct damage from other pollutants or from nonfatal, acute health events such as asthma attacks. As such, our estimate can be considered a lower bound.

Recommended: Trump Tells EPA to Dismantle Clean Water Rules

Beyond Texas

The data we analyzed in our study reveal the magnitude of the problem caused by excess emissions. Yet, it is important to remember that they only capture the situation in Texas. We know very little about excess emissions and their trends over time at the national level. That’s because Texas is one of just a few states (the others being Louisiana and Oklahoma) that systematically track and make public information on these type of pollution releases.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has gone as far as to implement a system that requires facilities to publicly report excess emissions events within 24 hours of their occurrence, information that the TCEQ then makes available on its website.

Although Texas is unique in its reporting requirements, excess emissions events are common elsewhere as the watchdog group the Environmental Integrity Project, has documented in a series of reports.

Excess emissions are underregulated

The EPA, after decades of leaving excess emissions outside of its regulatory focus, made a concerted effort to update its approach during the final years of the Obama Administration.

Prompted by a lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club, the EPA issued a State Implementation Plan (SIP) call in 2015, asking states to revisit the way they regulate excess emissions. The agency found that certain SIP provisions in 36 states were “substantially inadequate to meet Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements.”

This means that industrial facilities may have been regularly surpassing the limit of their permitted pollution limits, in part because of these excess emissions. But because of state agency exemption provisions, it could be the case that these facilities would not always be penalized. In other words, the EPA determined that many states had, as a matter of policy, often failed to treat excess emissions as violations and potentially shielded offending companies from paying fines.

The EPA is now revisiting its policy as part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to scale back many of EPA regulations and decisions during the Obama era. Given the frequency, magnitude, and important adverse effects for public health, the EPA’s ultimate decision on how states should treat excess emissions is consequential.

In addition, much is still to be learned about the magnitude of the excess emissions problem across the country. If an effective regulatory framework is to be designed to reduce them, it is imperative that more states begin tracking excess emissions events in a detailed and systematic way, following the example set by Texas.

There are better ways to foster solar innovation and save jobs than Trump’s tariffs

President Donald Trump’s decision to impose punitive duties on imported solar panels and related equipment is rankling most of the industry.

This was the final step of a process that began when two U.S. subsidiaries of foreign solar panel makers filed a rarely used kind of trade complaint with the International Trade Commission. Trump largely followed the course of action the independent U.S. agency had recommended to protect domestic manufacturers from unfair competition.

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 US$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 Lighthizerasked 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 ratethe 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 becausemanufacturing 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.