Factories and Manufacturing

More stories

  • 175 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Netherlands and Japan Said to Join U.S. in Curbing China’s Access to Chip Tech

    by

    A new agreement is expected to expand the reach of U.S. technology restrictions on China issued last year.WASHINGTON — The Netherlands and Japan, both makers of some of the world’s most advanced equipment for manufacturing semiconductors, agreed on Friday to join with the United States in barring some shipments of their most high-tech machinery to China, people familiar with the agreement said.The agreement, which followed high-level meetings with U.S. national security officials in Washington, will help expand the reach of sweeping restrictions issued unilaterally by the Biden administration in October on the kinds of semiconductor technology that can be shared with China.The countries did not publicly announce the agreement, because of its sensitivity, and details remain unclear. But the deal seems likely to put technology industries in the countries on a more even footing, preventing companies in Japan and the Netherlands from rushing in to claim market share in China that has been abandoned by U.S. firms. American companies have said that possibility would put them at a disadvantage.More on JapanMissing a Successor: An owner’s struggle to find someone to take over his thriving business illuminates the potentially devastating economic effects of an aging society.Tech Workers: Japanese companies are trying to lure highly educated Indians to fill a shortage of IT engineers. Can they make their country appealing to them?Hiroyuki Nishimura: This celebrity entrepreneur and author has become a voice for disenchanted young Japanese. What he talks about much less is his ownership of 4chan.A Policy Change: Japan’s central bank unexpectedly announced in December that it was adjusting its stance on bond purchases. This is why that matters.The White House and the Dutch government declined to comment. The Japanese government did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The United States imposed strict controls in October on the sale to China of both semiconductors and the machines used to make them, arguing that Beijing could use the technology for military purposes, like breaking American codes or guiding hypersonic missiles. But well before those restrictions were issued, the United States had been pressing the Netherlands and Japan to further limit the advanced technology they export to China.The October rules also clamped down on certain shipments to China from countries outside the United States. Using a novel regulation called the foreign direct product rule, the Biden administration barred companies that use American technology, software or inputs from selling certain advanced semiconductors to China. But these measures applied only to chips, not the machinery used to make them.Instead, the White House continued to press allies to pass restrictions limiting the sales of semiconductor manufacturing equipment by firms like the Dutch company ASML or Tokyo Electron in Japan. The White House argued that the sale of this advanced machinery to China created the danger that Beijing could one day make its own versions of the advanced products it could no longer buy from the United States.The negotiations, which are likely to continue, have had to overcome both commercial and logistical concerns. Like the Americans, the Dutch and Japanese were concerned that if they pulled out of the Chinese market, foreign competitors would take their place, said Emily Benson, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Relations, a Washington think tank. Over time, that “could impact their ability to maintain a technological edge over competitors,” she said.The Dutch government has already forbidden sales of its most advanced semiconductor machinery, called extreme ultraviolet lithography systems, to China. But the United States has encouraged the Dutch to also limit a slightly less advanced system, called deep ultraviolet lithography. The deal reached Friday includes at least some restrictions on that equipment, according to one person familiar with its terms.Governments have also faced questions about whether they possess the legal authority to issue restrictions like the United States, as well as extensive technical discussions about which technologies to restrict. Japan and the Netherlands will still likely require some time to make changes to their laws and regulations to put new restrictions in place, Ms. Benson added, and it could take months or years for restrictions in the three countries to mirror one another. More

  • 175 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Climate Change May Bring New Era of Trade Wars, as E.U. and U.S. Spar

    by

    Countries are pursuing new solutions to try to mitigate climate change. More trade fights are likely to come hand in hand.WASHINGTON — Efforts to mitigate climate change are prompting countries across the world to embrace dramatically different policies toward industry and trade, bringing governments into conflict.These new clashes over climate policy are straining international alliances and the global trading system, hinting at a future in which policies aimed at staving off environmental catastrophe could also result in more frequent cross-border trade wars.In recent months, the United States and Europe have proposed or introduced subsidies, tariffs and other policies aimed at speeding the green energy transition. Proponents of the measures say governments must move aggressively to expand sources of cleaner energy and penalize the biggest emitters of planet-warming gases if they hope to avert a global climate disaster.But critics say these policies often put foreign countries and companies at a disadvantage, as governments subsidize their own industries or charge new tariffs on foreign products. The policies depart from a decades-long status quo in trade, in which the United States and Europe often joined forces through the World Trade Organization to try to knock down trade barriers and encourage countries to treat one another’s products more equally to boost global commerce.Now, new policies are pitting close allies against one another and widening fractures in an already fragile system of global trade governance, as countries try to contend with the existential challenge of climate change.“The climate crisis requires economic transformation at a scale and speed humanity has never attempted in our 5,000 years of written history,” said Todd N. Tucker, the director of industrial policy and trade at the Roosevelt Institute, who is an advocate for some of the measures. “Unsurprisingly, a task of this magnitude will require a new policy tool kit.”The current system of global trade funnels tens of millions of shipping containers stuffed with couches, clothing and car parts from foreign factories to the United States each year, often at astonishingly low prices. But the prices that consumers pay for these goods do not take into account the environmental harm generated by the far-off factories that make them, or by the container ships and cargo planes that carry them across the ocean.A factory in Chengde, China. U.S. officials believe they must lessen a dangerous dependence on goods from China.Fred Dufour/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAmerican and European officials argue that more needs to be done to discourage trade in products made with more pollution or carbon emissions. And U.S. officials believe they must lessen a dangerous dependence on China in particular for the materials needed to power the green energy transition, like solar panels and electric vehicle batteries.The Biden administration is putting in place generous subsidies to encourage the production of clean energy technology in the United States, such as tax credits for consumers who buy American-made clean cars and companies building new plants for solar and wind power equipment. Both the United States and Europe are introducing taxes and tariffs aimed at encouraging less environmentally harmful ways of producing goods.Biden administration officials have expressed hopes that the climate transition could be a new opportunity for cooperation with allies. But so far, their initiatives seem to have mainly stirred controversy when the United States is already under attack for its response to recent trade rulings.The administration has publicly flouted several decisions of World Trade Organization panels that ruled against the United States in trade disputes involving national security issues. In two separate announcements in December, the Office of the United States Trade Representative said it would not change its policies to abide by W.T.O. decisions.But the biggest source of contention has been new tax credits for clean energy equipment and vehicles made in North America that were part of a sweeping climate and health policy bill that President Biden signed into law last year. European officials have called the measure a “job killer” and expressed fears they will lose out to the United States on new investments in batteries, green hydrogen, steel and other industries. In response, European Union officials began outlining their own plan this month to subsidize green energy industries — a move that critics fear will plunge the world into a costly and inefficient “subsidy war.”The United States and European Union have been searching for changes that could be made to mollify both sides before the U.S. tax-credit rules are settled in March. But the Biden administration appears to have only limited ability to change some of the law’s provisions. Members of Congress say they intentionally worded the law to benefit American manufacturing.Biden administration is putting in place subsidies to encourage the production of clean energy technology in the United States, such as tax credits for consumers who buy American-made clean cars.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesEuropean officials have suggested that they could bring a trade case at the World Trade Organization that might be a prelude to imposing tariffs on American products in retaliation.Valdis Dombrovskis, the European commissioner for trade, said that the European Union was committed to finding solutions but that negotiations needed to make progress or the European Union would face “even stronger calls” to respond.“We need to follow the same rules of the game,” he said.Anne Krueger, a former official at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, said the potential pain of American subsidies on Japan, South Korea and allies in Europe was “enormous.”“When you discriminate in favor of American companies and against the rest of the world, you’re hurting yourself and hurting others at the same time,” said Ms. Krueger, now a senior fellow at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.But in a letter last week, a collection of prominent labor unions and environmental groups urged Mr. Biden to move forward with the plans without delays, saying outdated trade rules should not be used to undermine support for a new clean energy economy.“It’s time to end this circular firing squad where countries threaten and, if successful, weaken or repeal one another’s climate measures through trade and investment agreements,” said Melinda St. Louis, the director of the Global Trade Watch for Public Citizen, one of the groups behind the letter.Valdis Dombrovskis, the European commissioner for trade, has pressed the United States to negotiate more on its climate-related subsidies for American manufacturing.Stephanie Lecocq/EPA, via ShutterstockOther recent climate policies have also spurred controversy. In mid-December, the European Union took a major step toward a new climate-focused trade policy as it reached a preliminary agreement to impose a new carbon tariff on certain imports. The so-called carbon border adjustment mechanism would apply to products from all countries that failed to take strict actions to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.The move is aimed at ensuring that European companies that must follow strict environmental regulations are not put at a disadvantage to competitors in countries where laxer environmental rules allow companies to produce and sell goods more cheaply. While European officials argue that their policy complies with global trade rules in a way that U.S. clean energy subsidies do not, it has still rankled countries like China and Turkey.The Biden administration has also been trying to create an international group that would impose tariffs on steel and aluminum from countries with laxer environmental policies. In December, it sent the European Union a brief initial proposal for such a trade arrangement.The idea still has a long way to go to be realized. But even as it would break new ground in addressing climate change, the approach may also end up aggravating allies like Canada, Mexico, Brazil and South Korea, which together provided more than half of America’s foreign steel last year.Under the initial proposal, these countries would theoretically have to produce steel as cleanly as the United States and Europe, or face tariffs on their products.A steel plant in Belgium. Under the initial proposal, countries would theoretically have to produce steel as cleanly as the United States and Europe, or face tariffs.Kevin Faingnaert for The New York TimesProponents of new climate-focused trade measures say discriminating against foreign products, and goods made with greater carbon emissions, is exactly what governments need to build up clean energy industries and address climate change.“You really do need to rethink some of the fundamentals of the system,” said Ilana Solomon, an independent trade consultant who previously worked with the Sierra Club.Ms. Solomon and others have proposed a “climate peace clause,” under which governments would commit to refrain from using the World Trade Organization and other trade agreements to challenge one another’s climate policies for 10 years.“The complete legitimacy of the global trading system has never been more in question,” she said.In the United States, support appears to be growing among both Republicans and Democrats for more nationalist policies that would encourage domestic production and discourage imports of dirtier goods — but that would also most likely violate World Trade Organization rules.Most Republicans do not support the idea of a national price on carbon. But they have shown more willingness to raise tariffs on foreign products that are made in environmentally damaging ways, which they see as a way to protect American jobs from foreign competition.Robert E. Lighthizer, a chief trade negotiator for the Trump administration, said there was “great overlap” between Republicans and Democrats on the idea of using trade tools to discourage imports of polluting products from abroad.“I’m coming at it to get more American employed and with higher wages,” he said. “You shouldn’t be able to get an economic advantage over some guy working in Detroit, trying to support his family, from pollution, by manufacturing overseas.” More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    New Orleans Port Expansion Shows Optimism on Future of Global Trade

    by

    NEW ORLEANS — The pandemic-era collapse of supply chains spurred speculation that globalization was on the decline, as companies vowed to become less reliant on foreign providers of goods and services. But if New Orleans is any example, the world is headed for less of a retreat from global trade and more of an overhaul to how it operates.A critical gateway between the Mississippi River and global oceans, New Orleans has been an entry and exit point for the United States since before the Louisiana Purchase. The city is now betting that position will continue — and even deepen — as the world enters a new era of global integration.The New Orleans port is one of the nation’s busiest for agricultural exports like soybeans and corn. But it has struggled to compete for the lucrative imports that are ferried on huge ships from Asia in part because those vessels cannot fit under a local bridge. As global supply chains rearrange in the pandemic’s wake, New Orleans’s proximity to Mexico and its position on the Mississippi River could help make it a crucial stop in what many expect to be a more resilient and supply chain of the future.Executives at the New Orleans port are wagering on that transformation: They recently unveiled a plan to spend $1.8 billion on expanding the port to a new site that can handle more trade and accommodate bigger boats.That optimism about the future of trade breaks with some of the worst fears of the past few years, as pandemic-related supply chain disruptions, Covid lockdowns in China and Russia’s war with Ukraine shook confidence in the global trading system. Policymakers and company executives vowed to become less reliant on China and to locate supply chains closer to home. That prompted predictions that the world was headed for a period of “de-globalization,” in which the trade and financial ties that have brought countries closer in recent decades would spin into reverse.So far, economic data show few signs of such a sharp retreat. Global trade volumes are growing more slowly, but they continue to reach new highs, with significantly more goods and currency crossing international borders than ever before.New Orleans has long been a key artery through which products made in the America’s South and Midwest flow to buyers overseas.Some firms are looking beyond China for manufacturing capacity, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are retreating from global integration: Many are turning to countries like Mexico, India and Vietnam. And even as pandemic supply chain issues have alerted companies to the risks inherent in the existing trading system, that seems to be encouraging them to diversify their global supply chains, not dismantle them.The trends, and the way institutions like the Port of New Orleans, are responding underscore that globalization is evolving rather than unraveling altogether. The changes to trade now underway seem likely to rework who partners with whom and could make international commerce less efficient and more expensive. But the profit motives that have encouraged companies to search out the globe for parts, workers and new markets are still going strong.“When I hear people say the word ‘globalization,’ what I hear is ‘cost minimization,’” Raphael Bostic, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, said in an interview on Jan. 7. “The new globalization is not going to have that second part to it.”Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

  • 138 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Pours Money Into Chips, but Even Soaring Spending Has Limits

    by

    In September, the chip giant Intel gathered officials at a patch of land near Columbus, Ohio, where it pledged to invest at least $20 billion in two new factories to make semiconductors.A month later, Micron Technology celebrated a new manufacturing site near Syracuse, N.Y., where the chip company expected to spend $20 billion by the end of the decade and eventually perhaps five times that.And in December, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company hosted a shindig in Phoenix, where it plans to triple its investment to $40 billion and build a second new factory to create advanced chips.The pledges are part of an enormous ramp-up in U.S. chip-making plans over the past 18 months, the scale of which has been likened to Cold War-era investments in the Space Race. The boom has implications for global technological leadership and geopolitics, with the United States aiming to prevent China from becoming an advanced power in chips, the slices of silicon that have driven the creation of innovative computing devices like smartphones and virtual-reality goggles.Today, chips are an essential part of modern life even beyond the tech industry’s creations, from military gear and cars to kitchen appliances and toys.Across the nation, more than 35 companies have pledged nearly $200 billion for manufacturing projects related to chips since the spring of 2020, according to the Semiconductor Industry Association, a trade group. The money is set to be spent in 16 states, including Texas, Arizona and New York on 23 new chip factories, the expansion of nine plants, and investments from companies supplying equipment and materials to the industry.The push is one facet of an industrial policy initiative by the Biden administration, which is dangling at least $76 billion in grants, tax credits and other subsidies to encourage domestic chip production. Along with providing sweeping funding for infrastructure and clean energy, the efforts constitute the largest U.S. investment in manufacturing arguably since World War II, when the federal government unleashed spending on new ships, pipelines and factories to make aluminum and rubber.“I’ve never seen a tsunami like this,” said Daniel Armbrust, the former chief executive of Sematech, a now-defunct chip consortium formed in 1987 with the Defense Department and funding from member companies.Sanjay Mehrotra, Micron Technology’s chief executive, at Onondaga Community College in Syracuse, N.Y., in October. The company is building a new manufacturing site nearby.Kenny Holston for The New York TimesWhite House officials have argued that the chip-making investments will sharply reduce the proportion of chips needed to be purchased from abroad, improving U.S. economic security.Kenny Holston for The New York TimesPresident Biden has staked a prominent part of his economic agenda on stimulating U.S. chip production, but his reasons go beyond the economic benefits. Much of the world’s cutting-edge chips today are made in Taiwan, the island to which China claims territorial rights. That has caused fears that semiconductor supply chains may be disrupted in the event of a conflict — and that the United States will be at a technological disadvantage.More on ChinaA Messy Pivot: As Beijing casts aside many Covid rules after nationwide protests, it is also playing down the threat of the virus. The move comes with its own risks.Space Program: Human spaceflight achievements show that China is running a steady space marathon rather than competing in a head-to-head space race with the United States.A Test for the Economy: China’s economy is entering a delicate period when it will face unique challenges, amid the prospect of rising Covid cases and wary consumers.New Partnerships: A trip by the Chinese leader Xi Jinping to Saudi Arabia showcased Beijing’s growing ties with several Middle Eastern countries that are longstanding U.S. allies and signaled China’s re-emergence after years of pandemic isolation.The new U.S. production efforts may correct some of these imbalances, industry executives said — but only up to a point.The new chip factories would take years to build and might not be able to offer the industry’s most advanced manufacturing technology when they begin operations. Companies could also delay or cancel the projects if they aren’t awarded sufficient subsidies by the White House. And a severe shortage in skills may undercut the boom, as the complex factories need many more engineers than the number of students who are graduating from U.S. colleges and universities.The bonanza of money on U.S. chip production is “not going to try or succeed in accomplishing self-sufficiency,” said Chris Miller, an associate professor of international history at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, and the author of a recent book on the chip industry’s battles.White House officials have argued that the chip-making investments will sharply reduce the proportion of chips needed to be purchased from abroad, improving U.S. economic security. At the TSMC event in December, Mr. Biden also highlighted the potential impact on tech companies like Apple that rely on TSMC for their chip-making needs. He said that “it could be a game changer” as more of these companies “bring more of their supply chain home.”U.S. companies led chip production for decades starting in the late 1950s. But the country’s share of global production capacity gradually slid to around 12 percent from about 37 percent in 1990, as countries in Asia provided incentives to move manufacturing to those shores.Today, Taiwan accounts for about 22 percent of total chip production and more than 90 percent of the most advanced chips made, according to industry analysts and the Semiconductor Industry Association.The new spending is set to improve America’s position. A $50 billion government investment is likely to prompt corporate spending that would take the U.S. share of global production to as much as 14 percent by 2030, according to a Boston Consulting Group study in 2020 that was commissioned by the Semiconductor Industry Association.“It really does put us in the game for the first time in decades,” said John Neuffer, the association’s president, who added that the estimate may be conservative because Congress approved $76 billion in subsidies in a piece of legislation known as the CHIPS Act.Still, the ramp-up is unlikely to eliminate U.S. dependence on Taiwan for the most advanced chips. Such chips are the most powerful because they pack the highest number of transistors onto each slice of silicon, and they are often held up a sign of a nation’s technological progress.Intel long led the race to shrink the number of transistors on a chip, which is usually described in nanometers, or billionths of a meter, with smaller numbers indicating the most cutting-edge production technology. Then TSMC surged ahead in recent years.But at its Phoenix site, TSMC may not import its most advanced manufacturing technology. The company initially announced that it would produce five-nanometer chips at the Phoenix factory, before saying last month that it would also make four-nanometer chips there by 2024 and build a second factory, which will open in 2026, for three-nanometer chips. It stopped short of discussing further advances.Morris Chang, founder of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, at the company’s site in Phoenix in December. The company said it would triple its investment there to $40 billion.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York TimesAt the TSMC event last month, President Biden highlighted the potential impact on tech companies that rely on TSMC for their chip-making needs.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York TimesIn contrast, TSMC’s factories in Taiwan at the end of 2022 began producing three-nanometer technology. By 2025, factories in Taiwan will probably start supplying Apple with two-nanometer chips, said Handel Jones, chief executive at International Business Strategies.TSMC and Apple declined to comment.Whether other chip companies will bring more advanced technology for cutting-edge chips to their new sites is unclear. Samsung Electronics plans to invest $17 billion in a new factory in Texas but has not disclosed its production technology. Intel is manufacturing chips at roughly seven nanometers, though it has said its U.S. factories will turn out three-nanometer chips by 2024 and even more advanced products soon after that.The spending boom is also set to reduce, though not erase, U.S. reliance on Asia for other kinds of chips. Domestic factories produce only about 4 percent of the world’s memory chips — which are needed to store data in computers, smartphones and other consumer devices — and Micron’s planned investments could eventually raise that percentage.But there are still likely to be gaps in a catchall variety of older, simpler chips, which were in such short supply over the past two years that U.S. automakers had to shut down factories and produce partly finished vehicles. TSMC is a major producer of some of these chips, but it is focusing its new investments on more profitable plants for advanced chips.“We still have a dependency that is not being impacted in any way shape or form,” said Michael Hurlston, chief executive of Synaptics, a Silicon Valley chip designer that relies heavily on TSMC’s older factories in Taiwan.The chip-making boom is expected to create a jobs bonanza of 40,000 new roles in factories and companies that supply them, according to the Semiconductor Industry Association. That would add to about 277,000 U.S. semiconductor industry employees.But it won’t be easy to fill so many skilled positions. Chip factories typically need technicians to run factory machines and scientists in fields like electrical and chemical engineering. The talent shortage is one of the industry’s toughest challenges, according to recent surveys of executives.The CHIPS Act contains funding for work force development. The Commerce Department, which is overseeing the doling out of grant money from the CHIPS Act’s funds, has also made it clear that organizations hoping to obtain funding should come up with plans for training and educating workers.Intel, responding to the issue, plans to invest $100 million to spur training and research at universities, community colleges and other technical educators. Purdue University, which built a new semiconductor laboratory, has set a goal of graduating 1,000 engineers each year and has attracted the chip maker SkyWater Technology to build a $1.8 billion manufacturing plant near its Indiana campus.Yet training may go only so far, as chip companies compete with other industries that are in dire need of workers.“We’re going to have to build a semiconductor economy that attracts people when they have a lot of other choices,” Mitch Daniels, who was president of Purdue at the time, said at an event in September.Since training efforts may take years to bear fruit, industry executives want to make it easier for highly educated foreign workers to obtain visas to work in the United States or stay after they get their degrees. Officials in Washington are aware that comments encouraging more immigration could invite political fire.But Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary, was forthright in a speech in November at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Attracting the world’s best scientific minds is “an advantage that is America’s to lose,” she said. “And we’re not going to let that happen.” More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Workers at E.V. Battery Plant in Ohio Vote to Unionize

    by

    The result, at a plant owned by General Motors and a South Korean company, is a milestone for the auto union in organizing electric vehicle workers.In an early test of President Biden’s promise that the transition to electric vehicles will create high-paying union jobs, employees at a battery plant in eastern Ohio have voted to join the United Automobile Workers union.The outcome appears to create the first formal union at a major U.S. electric car, truck or battery cell manufacturing plant not owned entirely by one of the Big Three automakers. The factory, known as Ultium Cells, is a joint venture of General Motors and the South Korean manufacturer LG Energy Solution.A union statement early Friday said the result was 710 to 16 in two days of balloting.“As the auto industry transitions to electric vehicles, new workers entering the auto sector at plants like Ultium are thinking about their value and worth,” said Ray Curry, the U.A.W. president, in the statement. “This vote shows that they want to be a part of maintaining the high standards and wages that U.A.W. members have built in the auto industry.”The National Labor Relations Board said it had received the tally and would move to certify the result if no objections were filed.Mr. Biden issued a statement after the vote saluting the Ultium workers and declaring, “In my administration, American and union workers can and will lead the world in manufacturing once again.”While existing plants owned by the three legacy U.S. automakers have maintained a union presence as they have shifted production to electric vehicles, the union must start from scratch at plants like the one in Ohio and joint ventures through which Ford Motor is building battery factories in the South. Other electric vehicle companies, like Tesla, Rivian and Lucid, are also not unionized.The autoworkers union has long worried about the transition to electric vehicles, first noting in a 2018 research paper that electric vehicles require about 30 percent less labor to produce than internal combustion vehicles. The paper also pointed out that the United States was falling far behind Asian and European countries in establishing an electric vehicle supply chain.Read More on Electric VehiclesGoing Mainstream: U.S. sales of battery-powered cars jumped 70 percent in the first nine months of the year, as non-affluent buyers are choosing electric vehicles to save money on gas.A Bonanza for Red States: No Republican in Congress voted for the Inflation Reduction Act. But their states will greatly benefit from the investments in electric vehicles spurred by the law.Rivian Recall: The electric-car maker said that it was recalling 13,000 vehicles after identifying an issue that could affect drivers’ ability to steer some of its vehicles.China’s Thriving Market: More electric cars will be sold in the country this year than in the rest of the world combined, as its domestic market accelerates ahead of the global competition.A report last year by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, estimated that the transition to electric vehicles could cost at least 75,000 U.S. auto industry jobs by 2030 if the government did not provide additional subsidies for domestic production, but could create 150,000 jobs if those subsidies were forthcoming.An ambitious climate and health care bill signed by Mr. Biden in August provided tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for the industry, raising the probability that auto industry jobs will be created rather than lost.But while Congress included certain incentives for union-scale wages in the construction of new plants, it ultimately removed elements of the legislation that would have helped ensure the creation of union jobs, such as a $4,500 incentive for vehicles assembled at a unionized facility in the United States.Josh Bivens, an author of the Economic Policy Institute report, said in an interview that he was pleasantly surprised that the administration managed to pass strong incentives for domestic production of electric vehicles. But whether the incentives will lead to good jobs, he added, is an open question.“There’s no real explicit subsidy or incentive to make these unionized or even high-wage,” Mr. Bivens said.Under the union’s contract with the Big Three automakers, veteran rank-and-file production workers make about $32 per hour. New hires start at a substantially lower wage and work their way up to that amount over several years.By contrast, companies that make electric vehicles or their components typically pay workers hourly wages in the midteens to the mid-20s.The union campaign at the Ohio plant was one of the easier tests facing U.A.W. organizers at electric vehicle facilities. The plant is in Warren, within a mile or two of a unionized General Motors facility in Lordstown that operated for decades before the company idled it and then sold it in 2019, making local residents familiar with the benefits of union membership.And while Ultium did not agree to a so-called card check process that could have bypassed a union election, it also did not wage a campaign seeking to dissuade workers from unionizing, according to a U.A.W. spokeswoman. Mary T. Barra, the General Motors chief executive, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television last week that the company was “very supportive” of the plant’s unionization.It is less clear how successful the union will be at organizing other new electric vehicle plants, such as an Ultium facility being built in Tennessee or three factories being built jointly by Ford and the South Korean battery maker SK Innovation in Kentucky and Tennessee, where the political culture is less hospitable to unions. Battery packs, which can cost around $15,000, are by far the most expensive component of an electric vehicle powertrain, the key parts and systems that power a car.The task may be even taller at plants owned solely by foreign manufacturers, such as an SK battery plant in Georgia or a huge plant that Hyundai is building in the state. The union has for decades struggled to organize so-called transplant facilities owned by foreign automakers in the South.Workers at the Ultium plant in Ohio, which began production this year, cited pay and safety issues as key reasons for unionizing. Dominic Giovannone, who helps fabricate battery cells, said he was now making about $16.50 per hour — a roughly $8 pay cut from his job at a plastic bag factory. He said the Ultium job attracted him because the plant was far closer to his home than his previous job had been.An Ultium spokeswoman said that hourly pay for rank-and-file workers ranged from $15 to $22 depending on experience and skills, and that the company paid a quarterly bonus and provided benefits as soon as employment began.Mr. Giovannone said that while the health care benefits were “phenomenal,” he wished the 401(k) match were more generous. He also said workers in his department were frequently required to handle harsh chemicals without enough information from the company to ensure that they did so safely.The lack of specific guidance on chemicals “is a big concern in the plant,” he said, adding that supervisors had not been very responsive when he and his co-workers prodded them on the issue.Ethan Surgenavic, a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning specialist at the plant, whose department is responsible for indoor conditions such as keeping humidity extremely low around certain components, said he, too, had taken a large pay cut to work there. He now makes $29 per hour, down from about $42, but he said the job also substantially reduced his commute.He agreed that the health benefits were strong but shared Mr. Giovannone’s concerns about safety. Mr. Surgenavic said that when workers raise questions about safety rules, “it feels like it lands on deaf ears.” He cited worries about having to change a machine’s air filter in a room that contains toxic material.The Ultium spokeswoman said that signs were posted throughout the plant with QR codes linking to safety information, and that paper handouts were also available. She said that the company had specific safety standards for issues like respiratory protection and chemical control and that it encouraged all workers to report concerns.The union campaign at Ultium took place against the backdrop of a recent U.A.W. election in which reformist candidates defeated several members of the longtime leadership caucus, citing rampant corruption within the union and members’ frustrations with limited improvements in their contracts over the past decade.In an interview, Shawn Fain, who will face the incumbent president, Mr. Curry, in a runoff election, said the union’s relative lack of progress in organizing electric vehicle plants reflected years of complacency with the union’s leadership.Mr. Fain said the Big Three automakers pursued electric vehicle joint ventures with foreign companies to make it harder for workers there to unionize. “The whole system is put together to circumvent the U.A.W. and any type of relationships with current members and employees,” he said. “At the first sign of that, our leadership should have went to war.”General Motors said it relied on joint ventures to bring in expertise that complemented its existing battery technology and to help meet the projects’ enormous capital requirements. The U.A.W. did not respond to a request for comment. More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Global Car Supply Chains Entangled With Abuses in Xinjiang, Report Says

    by

    A new report on the auto industry cites extensive links to Xinjiang, where the U.S. government now presumes goods are made with forced labor.The global auto industry remains heavily exposed to the Xinjiang region of China for raw materials, components and other supplies, a new report has found, despite a recent U.S. law intended to restrict purchases from the area, where the Chinese government has committed human rights abuses against mostly Muslim minorities.The report, from a team of researchers led by Laura T. Murphy, a professor of human rights and contemporary slavery at Britain’s Sheffield Hallam University, details the links between Chinese companies with deep ties to Xinjiang and the automakers that use their supplies, such as metals, batteries, wiring and wheels.The report identifies major Chinese companies that the researchers determined have participated in coercive labor programs in Xinjiang, or have recently sourced their materials and products from the region, where China has engaged in mass internment of Uyghurs and other minorities. Those Chinese firms are major participants in the global supply chain for auto parts, the report says, raising the likelihood that automakers like Volkswagen, Honda, Ford Motor, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz Group, Toyota and Tesla have sold cars containing raw materials or components that have at some point touched Xinjiang.“There was no part of the car we researched that was untainted by Uyghur forced labor,” Dr. Murphy said. “It’s an industrywide problem.”Such links could pose serious problems for the international auto brands. The Biden administration, like the Trump administration before it, has taken an increasingly aggressive posture toward Chinese trade violations and imports of goods made with forced labor, which the United Nations estimates affects 28 million people worldwide.Under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, products made wholly or partly in Xinjiang are now assumed to have been produced with forced labor, making them vulnerable to seizure by the federal government if they are brought into the United States. Customs officials say that since the law went into effect in June, they have stopped roughly 2,200 shipments — valued at more than $728 million — that were suspected of having Xinjiang content. More than 300 of those products were ultimately released into the United States.Federal officials did not disclose what kinds of products have been seized. But the new rules have been particularly disruptive for companies making clothing and solar panels, which source raw materials like cotton and polysilicon from Xinjiang.The New York Times has not independently verified the entire contents of the new report, which names roughly 200 companies, both Chinese and international, with potential direct or indirect links to Xinjiang. Many of the Chinese industrial giants named in the report have multiple production sites, meaning they could be supplying international automakers with metal, electronics or wheels made from their factories outside Xinjiang.The global supply chain for auto parts is vast and complex. According to estimates by McKinsey and Company, the average automotive manufacturer may have links to as many as 18,000 suppliers in its full supply chain, from raw materials to components.Many of those suppliers run through China, which has become increasingly vital to the global auto industry and the United States, the destination for about a quarter of the auto parts that China exports annually. Xinjiang is home to a variety of industries, but its ample coal reserves and lax environmental regulations have made it a prominent location for energy-intensive materials processing, like smelting metal, the report says.Chinese supply chains are complicated and opaque, which can make it difficult to trace certain individual products from Xinjiang to the United States. Over the past three years, Xinjiang and other parts of China have been intermittently locked down to keep the coronavirus at bay. Even before the pandemic, the Chinese government tightly controlled access to Xinjiang, especially for human rights groups and media outlets.Determining the extent of coercion that any individual Uyghur worker may face in Xinjiang’s mines or factories is also difficult given the region’s restrictions. But the overarching environment of repression in Xinjiang has prompted the U.S. government to presume that any products that have touched the region in their production are made with forced labor unless companies can prove otherwise.Workers in the region “don’t have a chance to say no,” said Yalkun Uluyol, a Xinjiang native and one of the report’s authors. Goods coming from Xinjiang “are a product of the exploitation of the land, of the resources and of the people,” he said.The report’s researchers identified numerous documents — including Chinese-language corporate filings, government announcements and ocean import records — indicating that international brands, at the very least, have multiple potential exposures to programs in Xinjiang that the U.S. government now defines as forced labor.Dr. Murphy said her team had identified nearly 100 Chinese companies mining, processing or manufacturing materials for the automotive industry operating in the Uyghur region, at least 38 of which had publicized their engagement in repressive state-sponsored labor programs through their social media accounts, corporate reports or other channels.International automakers contacted by The Times did not contradict the report but said they were committed to policing their supply chains against human rights abuses and forced labor.G.M., Volkswagen and Mercedes said their supplier codes of conduct prohibited forced labor. Honda said its suppliers were required to follow global sustainability guidelines. Ford said it maintained processes to ensure that its global operations, including in China, complied with all relevant laws and regulations.Toyota, in a statement, said, “We expect our business partners and suppliers to follow our lead to respect and not infringe upon human rights.”Tesla did not respond to repeated requests for comment.The Chinese government has insisted that there are no human rights violations in Xinjiang, and has called accusations of forced labor in Xinjiang “the lie of the century.”“‘Forced labor’ in Xinjiang is a lie deliberately made up and spread by the U.S. to shut China out of the global supply and industrial chains,” Liu Pengyu, the spokesman at the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said in a statement.Some of the Chinese companies named in the report are enormous industry suppliers that have proudly advertised their role in carrying out the Chinese government’s policies toward Uyghurs in social media postings, or in glossy annual reports.They include China Baowu Steel Group, the world’s largest steel maker, which has a subsidiary in Xinjiang that accounts for at least 9 percent of its total steel production, according to the report. Baowu and its subsidiaries make springs for car suspension systems, axles and body panels, as well as various kinds of steel that feed the supply chains of most international carmakers.In its 2020 corporate social responsibility report, which pledges adherence to China’s leader and the Communist Party, Baowu Group said that its subsidiary had “fully implemented the party’s ethnic policy” and that 364 laborers from poor families from villages in southern Xinjiang had “been arranged with employment.” Human rights advocates say the terms are euphemisms for organized mass transfers of Uyghur laborers into factories.According to the report, Baowu Group subsidiaries have participated in other transfers of workers from poor regions of Xinjiang, and in so-called poverty alleviation programs, which the United States now recognizes as a guise for forced labor. Under the new law, companies that participate in such programs can be added to a blacklist that blocks the products they make anywhere — even outside Xinjiang — from coming to the United States.The new report also builds on a June investigation published by The Times into Xinjiang’s role in producing electric vehicle battery minerals like lithium and nickel, as well as previous research by a firm called Horizon Advisory into the aluminum industry in Xinjiang. The report identifies recent transfers of Uyghur laborers at some of the world’s biggest aluminum companies, and traces these products to major auto industry suppliers, some of whom made shipments to the United States, Canada or Europe as recently as November, shipping records show.It also documents ties to Xinjiang and transfers of Uyghur workers for dozens of other significant auto industry suppliers, such as Double Coin, a tire maker that sells widely in the United States, including online at Walmart and Amazon.And it documents a recent investment by CATL — a Chinese firm that produces roughly a third of the world’s electric vehicle batteries and supplies Tesla, Ford, G.M., Volkswagen and other brands — in a major new lithium processing company in Xinjiang.Zhang Yizhi, a spokesman for CATL, said the company was a minority shareholder in the Xinjiang company and was not involved in its operations or management. CATL is committed to building a responsible supply chain and strictly opposes and prohibits any form of forced labor in its suppliers, he said.Baowu Group, Double Coin and its parent, Shanghai Huayi Group, did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Amazon declined to comment about its sale of Double Coin tires, while Walmart did not respond.The research suggests that the United States still has far to go in stopping the flow of goods linked to Xinjiang. Customs officials say they are working to enforce a ban on such products, but they are still hiring aggressively and working to build out the department’s capacity to identify and stop these goods.“We’re still in an upward trajectory,” said AnnMarie R. Highsmith, the executive assistant commissioner of the Office of Trade at Customs and Border Protection, in an interview in October.“Unfortunately,” she added, “the situation globally is such that we are going to have full employment for a while.” More

  • 163 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    ‘Innovation Hubs’ Aim to Lift Distressed Areas. Congress Just Has to Fund Them.

    by

    A new report suggests where 20 newly created research centers could best revitalize struggling economies and accelerate new technologiesWASHINGTON — Included in the bipartisan industrial policy legislation that President Biden signed into law this summer was a $10 billion effort to jump-start economically sputtering regions across the country: a series of “innovation hubs” across 20 metropolitan areas.Supporters of targeted federal efforts to revitalize struggling areas are eager for the Commerce Department to start picking the sites for those hubs. Researchers from a Washington think tank, the Economic Innovation Group, are set to release a comprehensive report on Monday that draws on a wide array of economic data to calculate where the hubs could best achieve their dual goals. Those include helping areas in need of an economic jolt and accelerating technological advancements that lift the U.S. economy as it competes on a global stage, and the list of potential sites is heavy on cities in the Mountain West, the Carolinas and Ohio.“The stakes here are really high,” said Kenan Fikri, director of research at the Economic Innovation Group. “They’re high in the competition between the United States and China, and they’re high for the future of place-based policies.”But before the Commerce Department can start the process of deciding where to put the hubs, Congress must actually fund their creation. The need for Congress to greenlight actual money extends to many of the key provisions in the new law, the CHIPS and Science Act, which authorized lawmakers to fund a variety of new programs without actually laying out the money for them.As Mr. Biden prepares to fly to Arizona on Tuesday to celebrate investments in semiconductor manufacturing catalyzed by the CHIPS Act, the immediate fate of the innovation hubs is in flux. Lawmakers are debating whether they will be able to pass a comprehensive spending bill before the end of the year, or just a stopgap one, which would be less likely to include money for the hubs.Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

  • 100 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Chinese Solar Makers Evaded U.S. Tariffs, Investigation Finds

    by

    The Biden administration pre-emptively halted any penalties from the case in June, prompting critics to say the administration had shortcut its own trade rulesWASHINGTON — U.S. officials have determined that four of eight major Chinese solar companies under investigation in recent months tried to evade tariffs by funneling products into the United States through Southeast Asian countries, in a trade case that has pitted clean energy advocates against domestic solar panel manufacturers.The decision applies to the Thailand operations of Canadian Solar and Trina Solar, as well as BYD Cambodia and Vina Solar Vietnam, according to documents published by the Department of Commerce Friday morning.The ruling centered around esoteric trade laws that aim to protect American manufacturers from unfairly cheap foreign products. But more broadly, the case is related to an increasingly difficult question confronting U.S. policymakers: how quickly the United States can expect to wean itself off China’s supply of materials that are crucial for the American economy, including the solar panels that are needed for a transition to green energy.The investigation, initiated at the request of a small California-based company named Auxin Solar, centered on whether Chinese companies have been trying to bypass tariffs that the United States imposed on cheap solar panels imported from China. In recent years, Chinese solar companies have significantly expanded their manufacturing presence in Southeast Asian countries that do not face the same tariffs.The trade case rests on whether the Chinese companies are actually using these Southeast Asian countries as a significant site of manufacturing, or if they are just making minor changes to products that are largely made in China to try to get around U.S. trade rules.Other companies that were also under investigation — namely New East Solar Cambodia, Hanwha Q CELLS Malaysia, Jinko Solar Malaysia and the Vietnam operations of Boviet Solar — were found not to be violating U.S. trade rules.Typically, companies that are found to be circumventing U.S. tariffs would immediately be subject to higher duty rates to bring their products into the United States. But in an unusual measure, the Biden administration in June pre-empted those higher duties by announcing a two-year pause on any tariff increases on solar products.The administration said its decision to halt additional tariffs would help ensure that the United States has enough solar panels as it tries to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in the months to come. The Biden administration has set an ambitious goal of generating 100 percent of the nation’s electricity from carbon-free energy sources by 2035, a goal that may require more than doubling the annual pace of solar installations.But domestic manufacturing groups have criticized the president’s decision to halt any imposition of tariffs, saying he is failing to enforce America’s trade rules and crack down on unfair Chinese practices.Solar importers, too, have expressed dissatisfaction with the decision, saying that the two-year pause is not enough time to establish sufficient manufacturing capacity outside China to meet rising U.S. demand.Enormous planned investments in solar energy have raised the stakes of the debate. The Inflation Reduction Act, a sweeping new climate law signed by President Biden in August, provides roughly $37 billion in incentives for companies to produce solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and other crucial minerals in the United States, aiming to reverse the longstanding migration of clean energy manufacturing to China and elsewhere.The clash is the latest chapter in a decade-long conflict between the United States and China over the solar industry. In 2012, the United States began imposing duties on Chinese solar panels, arguing that Chinese manufacturers were unfairly selling their products in the United States at prices below the cost of production. Chinese solar manufacturers shifted their operations to Taiwan instead, but the United States soon expanded its tariffs to apply to Taiwan, as well.In recent years, Chinese companies have set up new manufacturing operations in Southeast Asia, and exports of solar products to the United States from Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand and Cambodia have exploded. In many cases, these factories appear to rely on raw materials sourced largely from China, like polysilicon.That business model has proved problematic in more ways than one. The U.S. government has found that major Chinese producers of polysilicon and solar products are guilty of using forced labor in the Xinjiang region of China and has banned any products using that polysilicon from the United States.Auxin Solar and other domestic manufacturers have also said that the boom in business in Southeast Asia was an attempt by Chinese companies to evade the duties that the United States had imposed on Chinese products.In a preliminary decision on the case on Friday, officials at the Commerce Department agreed, at least for some cases. The Commerce Department will now require solar companies exporting to the United States from Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam and Cambodia to certify that a significant proportion of their materials are coming from outside China. Otherwise, companies in those countries will be subject to the same duties paid by their Chinese suppliers starting in 2024. The Commerce Department will continue to review the case and issue its final decision on the matter on May 1, 2023.Mamun Rashid, the chief executive of Auxin Solar, said in a statement that the findings “largely validated and confirmed Auxin’s allegations of Chinese cheating.”“We will continue to press forward in these cases as they continue to make sure all trade cheats are playing by the rules,” he said.Abigail Ross Hopper, the chief executive of the Solar Energy Industries Association, which opposed the investigation, said the group was “obviously disappointed that commerce elected to exceed its legal authority” by ruling against the imports from Southeast Asia.“This decision will strand billions of dollars’ worth of American clean energy investments and result in the significant loss of good-paying, American, clean energy jobs,” she said, adding, “This is a mistake we will have to deal with for the next several years.”Major solar importers have complained for months of difficulties obtaining enough solar panels to meet growing demand for clean energy solutions. George Hershman, the chief executive of SOLV Energy, a large solar contracting firm that has provided engineering, construction and maintenance services for projects across 26 states, said the decision was likely to disrupt an industry that has already been reeling from supply chain constraints in recent years.“The upside is that commerce took a nuanced approach to exempt a number of manufacturers rather than issuing a blanket ban of all products from the targeted countries,” Mr. Hershman said. “While it’s positive that companies will be able to access some of the crucial materials we need to deploy clean energy, it’s still true that this ruling will further constrict a challenged supply chain.”Some members of the Biden administration are sympathetic to these arguments. In a hearing in May before the Senate Energy Committee, Jennifer M. Granholm, the secretary of energy, said the investigation put at stake “the complete smothering of the investment and the jobs and the independence that we would be seeking as a nation to get our fuel from our own generation sources.”The investigation was under the purview of the Department of Commerce, not the Department of Energy, she said. “But I am certainly deeply concerned about the goal of getting to 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 if this is not resolved quickly.”But the Biden administration’s decision to effectively neutralize the trade investigation by halting any additional tariffs that would result from it until June 2024 has also attracted its share of criticism.Along with the small group of solar manufacturers who do not have ties to China, groups that lobby in favor of domestic manufacturing have protested the Biden administration’s taking action in a type of trade decision that is typically independent and quasi-judicial.“This is illegal activity that is directly harming our companies. That’s why we have trade laws,” said Nick Iacovella, the communications director for the Coalition for a Prosperous America, which called Friday for the Biden administration to rescind its emergency declaration halting the tariffs. “There’s absolutely no reason we should allow the Chinese to continue illegal activity for two years.”In a letter to the Biden administration in July, Democratic lawmakers, including Daniel T. Kildee of Michigan, also criticized the decision to pause the tariffs, saying it would undercut “existing and planned domestic solar manufacturing investments, hurting American workers and companies.”Trade remedy laws are one of the only tools available to defend American manufacturers and “should not be undermined,” they wrote.But other lawmakers called on Friday for an extension of the two-year pause on tariffs. Eight Democratic senators, led by Jacky Rosen from Nevada, said solar projects needed access to more basic components to operate.The debate is taking on increasing urgency now that the United States is preparing to make huge investments in its clean energy industry, through bills such as the Inflation Reduction Act.Analysts say it will still take time for the United States to be independent of foreign solar imports. In 2021, the United States had the capacity to manufacture roughly 7.5 gigawatts’ worth of solar modules a year, according to industry figures.In the wake of the passage of the new climate law, several companies have announced plans to increase that capacity by another 20 gigawatts a year over the coming decade, according to ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington research firm.But solar companies are expected to install far more than that — nearly 40 gigawatts worth of solar capacity in 2023, according to government forecasts — spurred on by other tax breaks for solar power in the new climate law. And the country still lacks the capacity to produce solar cells and wafers, key components that are primarily produced overseas.“Therefore, domestic solar panel manufacturers appear likely to rely heavily on an overseas supply chain after” any tariffs are potentially put in place by the end of 2024 as a result of the Commerce Department’s decision, the analysts at ClearView concluded. More