Green Trade Tit-for-Tat Continues Apace

After the US Department of Commerce initiated a trade remedies investigation into Chinese solar power imports, China has responded in a completely predictable manner:

China on Friday announced an investigation into government policy and subsidy support for renewable energy, weeks after the United States decided to probe sales of Chinese-made solar panels. The announcement by the Commerce Ministry also comes after China's solar industry association said on Tuesday that Chinese solar companies may ask Beijing to launch an anti-dumping and subsidy probe into imports of U.S. polysilicon, the raw material used to make solar cells....

"The Ministry of Commerce has decided to initiate a trade barrier investigation into policy support and subsidies for the U.S. renewable energy sector," a statement on the ministry's website (www.mofcom.gov.cn) said. It said Chinese companies argued that the U.S. policies "constitute a trade barrier against the export of Chinese renewable energy products to the United States".

The companies complained that U.S. measures "violated the United States' commitments under World Trade Organization rules, and are an unreasonable barrier and restriction on China's renewable energy industry, reducing the competitiveness of Chinese products in the U.S. market".

The investigation would cover programs from the states of Washington, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Jersey and California, the statement said, and include wind energy, solar and hydro technology products.

"During the investigation, the investigating agency may engage in consultations with the U.S. government concerning the measures in question," the ministry said.

An unnamed ministry official said in a separate statement that the ministry would "fairly and objectively evaluate" the U.S. policy and subsidy measures identified by the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products and the China New Energy Chamber of Commerce.

The official added that the ministry would consider "initiating the WTO dispute resolution process" if justified. Earlier this month, the ministry said it was "greatly concerned" about Washington's probe into whether China was selling solar panels in the U.S. at unfair discounts and that its investigation could hurt U.S.-China energy cooperation....

The Chinese action doesn't appear to be your standard trade remedies (anti-dumping, countervailing duty or safeguards) investigation but instead something similar to "Section 301" of US trade law, which allows domestic companies and unions to petition the US government to engage in consultations with - and, where necessary, file WTO disputes against - foreign countries based on the latter's alleged protectionism.  As you may recall, the United Steelworkers union filed a Section 301 petition against Chinese renewable energy policies back in 2009, and USTR initiated a WTO dispute - which eventually resulted in China's elimination of the challenged policies - a year later based on the USW petition.

As an aside, the article above notes this interesting tidbit:

The United States was a significant net exporter of solar products in 2010, including to China, according to U.S. industry group Solar Energy Industries Association.  Total U.S. exports of solar energy products were $5.6 billion, with net exports totaling $2 billion. 

U.S. imports of solar panels from China rose to $1.5 billion in 2010 from $640 million in 2009. 

Yes, you read that right: the United States is a net exporter - by a very large margin - of solar technology products.  That little nugget might come as a revelation if you listened to only President Obama, his Democratic allies in Congress, or any number of pundits and industry hacks who breathlessly push for increased government subsidies - and domestic protectionism - to help US "green energy" companies can become globally competitive.

Seems like they're doing just fine to me, huh?

Meanwhile, the EU formally announced that it was initiating anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations of US ethanol imports - a decision that was pretty much a foregone conclusion when the European industry filed the petition earlier this month:

“The EU has today initiated anti-subsidy and anti-dumping investigations into imports of bioethanol from the USA to establish if U.S. imports of bioethanol have an adverse effect on the European bioethanol industry,” said John Clancy, a spokesman at the European Commission in Brussels.

The probes, based on Oct. 12 complaints by the European bioethanol industry represented by the European Producers Union of Renewable Ethanol Association, or ePure, may result in extra taxes on U.S. producers such as Poet LLC, Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Valero Energy Corp. Provisional findings are due by Aug. 24, 2012, Clancy said....

“Generous” federal excise-tax and income tax credits and aid at “all levels of government” helped the U.S. become the top ethanol producer as output fell in Brazil, once the largest exporter, ePure said in a Nov. 2 statement. The lobby represents 21 ethanol producers including Sued-Chemie AG and Tereos Internacional SA’s French unit and 26 companies in the ethanol value chain such as DuPont Co. and Novozymes A/S....

The U.S. is benefiting from higher costs and production shortfalls in Europe, where output is about 165 million gallons (625 million liters) short of the 2.45 billion gallons that drivers are mandated to use this year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

International traders are shipping ethanol blends to Europe to take advantage of the EU’s lower tariff and a U.S. tax incentive for ethanol blending, ePure said. U.S. exports of ethanol to Europe climbed more than 500 percent from 2008 to 2010 and probably doubled this year from last, ePure said.

Federal tax breaks for ethanol and other renewable fuels were worth $6.3 billion in 2010, according to the Congressional Research Service. While the ethanol aid is due to expire at the end of this year, manufacturers are set to thrive as a government mandate for increased use of the fuel may add $6.9 billion a year in sales....

The U.S. subsidizes the ethanol industry with a 45-cent tax break for every gallon added to fuel. The tax break makes it profitable to blend ethanol with wholesale gasoline when the margin is less than 45 cents.

As I reported a few weeks ago, the new EU investigation isn't at all surprising given the immense US subsidies at play here and the fact that the EU industry had been complaining for months about a surge of US imports.  And as I've repeatedly noted here, the number of international trade disputes over nations' "green" energy policies is almost certain to increase in the future.

What is surprising, however, is the fact that (i) US taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars subsidizing domestic ethanol production - through tax breaks and the aforementioned "government mandate" - so that EU consumers can benefit from artificially cheap ethanol; and (ii) there are actually several Republican presidential candidates who are proud to support the current disaster that is US ethanol policy - mandates(!), trade disputes and all.

Isn't it time we reconsidered that policy and, you know, all of our other "green" shenanigans?

Here Comes the Chinese Retaliation?

Over the last few weeks, I've cautioned that America's absurd ethanol policies and the new US WTO complaint against Chinese "green subsidies" (which arose from the United Steelworkers' Section 301 petition) could spark new trade disputes targeting US exports.  Today comes news that China might be getting the ol' retaliation ball rolling with an anti-dumping investigation that fits both of my criteria perfectly (emphasis mine):

China, the world’s biggest grains user, has started an anti-dumping investigation into U.S. shipments of dried distillers’ grains, an animal feed ingredient, adding to tensions in ongoing trade disputes.

The government will probe for unfair trade practices on products imported in the year ended June 30 after receiving complaints from four domestic ethanol producers, the Ministry of Commerce said on its website today. Distillers’ grains, commonly known as DDGS, is a by-product from making corn-based ethanol.

The probe is likely to further strain commercial ties with the U.S. a month before President Hu Jintao is scheduled to visit Washington. China’s surging livestock production has spurred imports of animal feed ingredients including corn, soybeans and DDGS.

“This case against U.S. DDGS probably isn’t an isolated incident and must be observed in the context of the two sides’ trade relations,” Li Qiang, managing director at Shanghai JC, said by phone. “The investigation outcome may not support the charge because prices of imported DDGS have been higher, so it’ll be difficult to establish damages based on price,”

Imports of DDGS may jump nearly fivefold to over 3 million metric tons this year, according to Li. Still, the probe “may not have significant impact beyond the initial concern.”...

The investigation comes after the U.S. last week filed a complaint at the World Trade Organization against China over support for its wind-energy manufacturers. A government fund for wind manufacturers requires recipients to use domestically made parts, violating WTO rules, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office said. China responded by saying its policies were in line with the regulations.

Last month China said it would extend an anti-dumping probe on U.S. sports utility vehicles and large sedans and in October it said it would consider appealing a WTO decision to reject the bulk of its complaints against U.S. duties on imports of steel pipes....

The ministry will begin the investigation today and will likely conclude the probe within a year, the ministry’s statement said. The probe may be extended under exceptional circumstances to June 2012, it said.

Yes, this new investigation could just be a big coincidence.  Then again, the last time that the United States announced that it was targeting China in response to a USW petition under an arcane provision of US trade law (Section 421), the Chinese immediately responded with two new anti-dumping (and countervailing duty) investigations of US chicken and automobile exports.  And with US ethanol tariffs and subsidies angering producers around the world, it's no surprise at all that China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) had this petition the Chinese industry sitting around. (Unlike the more transparent US system, AD/CVD petitions are submitted confidentially in China, and MOFCOM has complete discretion re: whether and when to initiate an investigation.)  So you can draw your own conclusions as to whether this qualifies as "retaliation," or whether it's just a long-overdue Chinese response to bad US behavior on ethanol.  Either way, it's not good for US exporters of DDGS.

And speaking of naughty US ethanol policies, I must admit that I didn't foresee the DDGS case itself and instead was warning about potential countervailing duty investigations of subsidized US ethanol.  But the Chinese DDGS anti-dumping case is hardly surprising because, while it wasn't the direct result of US ethanol tariffs and subsidies, it's almost certainly the indirect result of these policies, as they inevitably increase domestic production (and thus lower prices) of the ethanol byproduct DDGS.  So while other DDGS cases could be on the way, we still could also see new investigations targeting US exports of the subsidized ethanol itself.  We shall see.

One last trade-lawyerly point: I'm not exactly sure what Li Qiang means when he/she says that the case might not result in anti-dumping duties against US exports because DDGS import prices are higher than domestic prices.  This could be a legitimate point if we're talking about proving that US DDGS imports materially injured the Chinese injury, but injury cases are very complex, and simple average unit value (AUV) comparisons are a pretty poor indicator of a "material injury" determination (and those import volume increases provide strong support for an injury finding).  On the other hand, Li is mistaken if he/she thinks an affirmative dumping finding will be difficult in this case because DDGS import prices are higher than domestic prices.  (Recall that the imposition of anti-dumping duties requires affirmative findings of both dumping and injury.)  Dumping occurs when import prices are lower than prices in the home (US) market or cost-of-production (aka "Normal Value"), so domestic (Chinese) prices are inapposite.  Li probably means the former scenario, but it's impossible to tell.  Chalk it up to shoddy reporting, I guess.

Hey, Look, Another Green Trade Dispute!

USTR announced today that it has filed a request for WTO dispute settlement consultations with China over its alleged subsidies to domestic wind power manufacturers.  But this is no ordinary WTO dispute for a whole host of reasons.  Here's Reuters with the news:

U.S. trade officials said they were concerned Chinese manufacturers of wind turbines and related parts and components could have received several hundred million dollars in questionable government grants in 2008 under China's Special Fund for Wind Power Manufacturing.

They said the grants appeared to violate WTO rules by requiring Chinese manufacturers to use only Chinese-made parts and components.

"Import substitution subsidies are particularly harmful and inherently trade distorting, which is why they are expressly prohibited under WTO rules," U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said in a statement. "These subsidies effectively operate as a barrier to U.S. exports to China....

The steelworkers union filed a petition in September, accusing Beijing of a long list of subsidies and other policies to favor production of clean energy technologies in China at the expense of the United States and other countries.

Kirk said his office would continue to investigate many of the allegations raised in the steelworkers' petition, and could bring additional cases at the WTO.

One high-profile issue still being examined by the U.S. trade representative's office is a complaint about China's restrictions on exports of rare earth minerals used in production of wind turbines, electric vehicles, solar cells and energy efficient lighting....

Kirk's office also said it had made progress on some of the steelworkers' concerns during the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade meeting last week in Washington.

Beijing agreed to no longer require foreign companies bidding for large-scale wind power projects in China to have prior experience in China, the U.S. trade office said.

China also recommitted to eliminating discriminatory local content requirements in wind manufacturing and informed the United States that two other subsidy programs challenged by the steelworkers union had been eliminated, Kirk's office said.

Steelworkers President Leo Gerard acknowledged progress was made in the recent U.S.-China talks and said the steelworkers were satisfied with the administration's approach.

The USTR request resulted from the USW's petition under Section 301 of US Trade Law.  When the USW filed the petition, I had a few notes, two of which still apply now:

(1) I must admit that I'm at a loss as to what the USW is really getting for its unknowing members' duesmoney here....  Section 301 is not like Section 421 (the tires case) or antidumping and countervailing duty investigations (the other cases mentioned), which can result in the unilateral imposition of remedial US tariffs on Chinese products. Instead, the very best outcome here is (i) the mutual resolution of the matter through bilateral consultations or (ii) a WTO case adjudicated by an independent panel of arbiters (unlike the, ahem, sympathetic US Department of Commerce or USTR). And, trust me, a 5000+ page petition drafted by a big DC law firm is not cheap (well, not if you want it done right). So what gives? Is this the world's most boring PR stunt, or am I missing something?

...

(3) It's no secret to readers of this blog that the USW complaint reeks of hypocrisy, as the Obama administration has already thrown billions of taxpayer dollars at green manufacturers over the last 21 months in an attempt to make them globally competitive. And it wouldn't be surprising at all for USTR to bring a WTO case against China's green subsidies, despite the fact that the US government's hands are also deep into the (green) cookie jar. What is surprising, however, is that the USW petition freely admits that US companies (and their unions, natch) have received tons of government cheese:... 

In essence, the USW is openly complaining that the Chinese are better cheaters than we are, and the union thus wants the US government to call in the WTO's referees in order to stop China's cheating.

The first point still applies: it simply doesn't make much sense from anything other than a PR/muscle-flexing angle for the USW to have spent all that money to get USTR to initiate one small WTO case against China (and to resolve a few other little things on the side).  USTR made clear in its press release that this is the only WTO dispute that it'll be filing based on the union's Section 301 petition.  And USTR was pretty savvy in picking a subsidy program that was relatively simple (allegations of prohibited subsidies don't require proof of "adverse" trade effects, and the subsidies, if found to violate WTO rules, must be withdrawn immediately) and relatively non-controversial.  It's pretty much the exact opposite of a case on China's rare earth minerals policies, which the USW demanded (and USTR dodged).  So by filing the case today, USTR appeases the unions, avoids a major conflict (for now), and gets a pretty easy WTO dispute - one that, if valid, will actually help to (relatively) quickly eliminate trade-distorting subsidies through bilateral consultations or a WTO panel/Appellate Body ruling.  Of course, China can always just terminate the challenged program and initiate another one, but that's not USTR's fault - it's an issue for all WTO anti-subsidy disputes.

My point (3) above is even more applicable now, seeing that the US just re-upped on a whole host of subsidies for US biofuels producers and "green" manufacturers.  And that fact should make us all wonder how China will respond to this news.  Recall that after the United States imposed tariffs on Chinese tires, China responded by immediately announcing trade remedies (anti-dumping and countervailing duty) investigations of US cars and chicken and by filing a WTO complaint.  Will China respond to the new US "green subsidy" complaint with a formal WTO challenge of the United States own green subsidies or with new CVD cases against subsidized US exports?  I wouldn't be surprised at all, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Three concluding points re: the bigger picture here.  First, the new US-China WTO dispute continues an increasingly troubling pattern of international trade disputes over nations' "green" policies, particularly subsidies.  I've highlighted several of these over the past year, and should China retaliate in-kind, we'd have (at least) one more.  And, as I've said repeatedly, I wouldn't be surprised if more disputes are on the way, given that pretty much every country in the world (especially the US and China) is simultaneously enacting "green" subsidies and protectionism at home, while trying to boost sales of its green products abroad.  The only bright side (so far) is that the disputes have been peacefully handled at the WTO, through bilateral consultations or through WTO-sanctioned domestic trade remedies cases.  One must wonder, however, if that good news will continue if/when the green trade tensions keep building.

Second, has the USW's (somewhat) successful Section 301 petition resurrected the long-dormant provision of US trade law?  As you may recall, Section 301 was once a pretty powerful, contentious and much-used tool in the US trade enforcement arsenal, but the cases pretty much disappeared after the WTO came online in 1995 because (i) the law was amended to comply with WTO rules and thus no longer would result in unilateral trade measures against other WTO Members (which is pretty much everyone); and (ii) USTR (under the Bush administration) had rejected all recent petitions.  Now, with USTR's acceptance of the USW petition and its filing of this new dispute, does this mean that other aggrieved unions and/or domestic manufacturers have a new way to push USTR into initiating a WTO dispute even when USTR (or some US companies) doesn't really want to do go down that road?  As a longtime supporter of the resolution of trade disputes through the WTO, I can certainly think of worse things, although many US companies have eschewed direct confrontation with China (for obvious reasons).  But a revitalized Section 301 and more WTO cases are certainly a lot better than the often-used alternative: paying off a Senator from, say, Ohio to sponsor WTO-illegal legislation imposing aggressive unilateral measures against possibly-innocent trading partners.

Finally, the new dispute might raise some long-dormant questions about the consistency of Section 301 with WTO rules.  The EU challenged Section 301 back in the early days of the WTO, and a panel delicately ruled that the measure, in theory, didn't violate WTO rules because it allows USTR to postpone any enforcement action until after all WTO dispute settlement proceedings have been completed and authorization to retaliate had been granted.  However, the WTO's Appellate Body never ruled on the issue (thus making the Panel's decision less definitive), and the Panel's ruling was (and still is) pretty controversial.  More importantly, the Panel in the EU dispute made clear that the United States walked a pretty narrow tightrope with respect to Section 301 proceedings, and that the US could quite easily violate WTO rules in practice.  Thus, USTR's actual application of Section 301 in this case could raise a whole host of issues that the EU challenge never really raised.  I'm certainly not saying that China's definitely on solid ground for a new WTO complaint against the US application of Section 301 or the law itself, but such a dispute wouldn't surprise me at all (particularly after China boldly challenged the United States' seemingly-bulletproof decision against Chinese tires under Section 421 of US trade law).  And that doesn't even get into what happens if the US loses the WTO dispute.  Then what happens under Section 301?  Does USTR (not to mention Congress and the USW) just drop the matter altogether?  Hmmm.

I know, I know: I'm asking lots of questions tonight and providing few answers.  But, hey, cut me some slack; we're in pretty uncharted waters here.

USW to China: Green Subsidies for Me, but Not for Thee

The big trade news of the day is that United Steelworkers union (USW) has filed a petition with the US government alleging that the Chinese government unfairly favors, through subsidies and other trade measures, its domestic manufacturers of "green" goods like solar panels and wind turbines.  The petition was filed under a section of US trade law - Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 - that was once a strong protectionist weapon but has basically gone dormant since the advent of the World Trade Organization.  Here's the New York Times with the basic facts about the new USW case:

The United Steelworkers union filed a legal case with the Obama administration Thursday morning, accusing China of violating World Trade Organization rules by subsidizing exports of clean energy equipment to the United States.

The filing, more than 5,000 pages long and 18 inches thick, contends that the central government in Beijing and China’s provincial governments have used land grants, low-interest loans and dozens of other measures that violate W.T.O. rules.

Leo W. Gerard, president of the 850,000-member union, said in a conference call with reporters after the filing that China’s violations of free-trade rules had helped Chinese companies expand their share of the world market for wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear power plants and other clean energy equipment, at the expense of jobs in the United States and elsewhere.

The filing asks the Office of the United States Trade Representative to begin formal consultations with China, which would lead to proceedings at the W.T.O. in Geneva if Beijing did not agree to repeal the subsidies....

Nefeterius A. McPherson, a spokeswoman for the Office of the United States Trade Representative, said that the office had accepted the union’s petition and would reach a decision on whether to open an investigation of Chinese trade practices within 45 days. That is the maximum amount of time allowed under the obscure provision invoked by the union in its filing, Section 301 of the 1974 trade law....

With clean energy a stated priority of the Obama administration, as a jobs generator and for environmental reasons, the union says it hopes to gain support for its case by injecting the trade issue into the autumn Congressional campaigns....

The filing of the trade case comes as trade and currency frictions with China are mounting. Friday morning in Beijing (late Thursday night in New York) China is expected to announce that in August it ran another especially large trade surplus, possibly exceeding $25 billion.

President Obama imposed steep tariffs a year ago on tire imports from China, a decision that China is itself now challenging before a W.T.O. panel, which is expected to give an initial ruling this month. The Commerce Department has separately granted dozens of requests to impose tariffs on very narrow categories of imports from China, like steel wire strands for prestressed concrete, after finding evidence that they were subsidized, or dumped, in the American market.

But special tariffs and other import restrictions still cover less than 3 percent of American imports from China. Unions and many Congressional Democrats have contended that the administration should be more assertive in forcing China to honor previous free-trade commitments. But the United States government has long depended on companies to gather commercial information for trade cases, which companies have been hesitant to do.

China’s manufacture of solar panels, wind power turbines and other clean energy products — with the strong support of its government, through land grants and low-interest loans — has turned that nation into the global leader in those markets. China has more than one million jobs in all clean energy industries combined.

Meanwhile, American and other Western manufacturers of solar and wind power equipment have struggled to compete. Some American clean energy companies have scaled back production and laid off workers, while moving operations to China.

Mr. Obama called in his State of the Union address in January for the United States to become a leader in green energy instead of ceding the industry to foreign competitors, including China. But China continues to gain market share in practically every category of clean energy technologies, including solar panels and high-speed trains....

The United Steelworkers union represents employees in a wide range of energy-related jobs, including manufacturers who make the steel for wind turbine towers and nuclear reactors, and glassworkers who make solar panels and various kinds of incandescent and halogen light bulbs. The union also represents workers involved in the assembly of wind turbine towers and those who make gears, valves, engines and other components of clean energy equipment. All those job categories have faced increased competition from China and other countries in recent years.

Another big American union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, with more than 700,000 members, is also involved in the installation of many clean energy systems, although the steelworkers’ union has not invited it or other unions to participate in the case....

Besides Chinese government assistance to clean energy exporters in the form of free or discounted land for manufacturing plants and low-cost loans, the steelworkers’ union says China has broken W.T.O. rules by tightly restricting the export of so-called rare earth elements needed for the manufacture of wind turbines, solar panels and energy-saving compact fluorescent bulbs.

The filing also accuses the Chinese government of forcing foreign clean energy companies to license their technology to local partners as a condition of entry to the Chinese market....

In the United States, the solar industry has been largely quiet on trade actions and has not retained a law firm to advise it on the feasibility of a trade case.

So while there have been months of back-channel discussions in the United States among lawyers, administration officials and corporate executives about China’s clean energy policies, those discussions have not led to the filing of any trade cases.

Section 301 of the 1974 trade law, the provision cited by the steelworkers’ union, gives legal standing to unions as well as corporations to file trade cases. The law provided the legal basis for threats of unilateral American trade restrictions in many confrontations with Japan and South Korea through the 1980s and early 1990s....

An executive summary of the USW's big petition is available on its website here.  As the NYT article makes clear, this is a pretty complex political and legal issue that requires far more than a Thursday-night blog post (especially with the NFL regular season kicking off in about an hour!).  So while I'm sure I'll have far more to say on this later, here are a few initial thoughts to tide you over.

(1) I must admit that I'm at a loss as to what the USW is really getting for its unknowing members' duesmoney here.  As the NYT article makes clear, Section 301 is not like Section 421 (the tires case) or antidumping and countervailing duty investigations (the other cases mentioned), which can result in the unilateral imposition of remedial US tariffs on Chinese products.  Instead, the very best outcome here is (i) the mutual resolution of the matter through bilateral consultations or (ii) a WTO case adjudicated by an independent panel of arbiters (unlike the, ahem, sympathetic US Department of Commerce or USTR).  And, trust me, a 5000+ page petition drafted by a big DC law firm is not cheap (well, not if you want it done right).  So what gives?  Is this the world's most boring PR stunt, or am I missing something?

(2) As the NYT states, the USW petition claims that Chinese subsidies have crippled American producers of several products, including light bulbs.  I guess the unions and their lawyers weren't expecting a front-page article in yesterday's Washington Post which essentially demonstrated that (i) US environmental regulations, not unfair Chinese trade practices, have killed the American incandescent lightbulb industry; and (ii) Chinese long-term investment and low labor costs, not subsidies, are the biggest reasons for China's success in the compact flourescent light (CFL) business.  Talk about bad timing!

(3) It's no secret to readers of this blog that the USW complaint reeks of hypocrisy, as the Obama administration has already thrown billions of taxpayer dollars at green manufacturers over the last 21 months in an attempt to make them globally competitive.  And it wouldn't be surprising at all for USTR to bring a WTO case against China's green subsidies, despite the fact that the US government's hands are also deep into the (green) cookie jar.  What is surprising, however, is that the USW petition freely admits that US companies (and their unions, natch) have received tons of government cheese:

China’s massive domestic subsidies to green technology are distorting trade and harming producers in other countries.  In its economic stimulus package, for example, China gave more than $216 billion to subsidize green technologies – more than twice as much as the U.S. spent in the sector and nearly half of the total “green” stimulus spent worldwide. These subsidies are helping Chinese producers ramp up production, seize market share, drive down prices, and put global competitors out of business. U.S. companies and firms have suffered the consequences as their exports are displaced, domestic market share erodes, prices plummet, and jobs are lost.

Obvious translation: Sure American manufacturers received $100 billion worth of green subsidies in order to crush their foreign competitors, but China's producers received lots more, and theirs have been far more effective!  No fair!   In essence, the USW is openly complaining that the Chinese are better cheaters than we are, and the union thus wants the US government to call in the WTO's referees in order to stop China's cheating.

Talk about chutzpah.

Exit question: if USTR ends up filing a WTO dispute on the USW's grounds, does that mean we'll have our first ever official case of "subsidy envy"?

(Cheesy answer: well, they don't call them "green" products for nuthin'!)