????一場圍繞太陽能面板的貿(mào)易戰(zhàn)正在醞釀中,，但開戰(zhàn)的理由看起來卻站不住腳,。西方國家的廠商很可能夸大了中國廉價組件對這個行業(yè)的健康造成的影響。太陽能面板的利潤應(yīng)該提高,，但懲罰性關(guān)稅加上中國可能發(fā)起的反擊也許恰恰會削弱太陽能的競爭力。

????歐盟貿(mào)易專員上周早些時候宣稱,，歐盟沒有和美國方面就所謂的中國向歐美市場傾銷太陽能面板這一貿(mào)易糾紛進行協(xié)調(diào)性解決對話。歐盟需要在6月5號前決定是否效仿美國,，對從中國進口的太陽能面板征收懲罰性關(guān)稅。據(jù)稱,，歐盟貿(mào)易專員卡瑞?德古赫特正在考慮對中國太陽能面板征收超過40%的關(guān)稅,。而據(jù)歐洲廠商估計，在歐洲市場銷售的太陽能面板80%來自中國,。美國去年就對中國太陽能面板強制征收過類似的高額關(guān)稅,。

????同時，中國也在反擊，威脅要對多晶硅這個仍然由西方國家廠商所控制的太陽能板原材料征收高額進口關(guān)稅,。

????毫無疑問,，太陽能面板廠商正備受煎熬。據(jù)行業(yè)研究咨詢公司HIS分析,，三年前面板制造商的毛利率高達(dá)30%,。去年年末，由于嚴(yán)重的產(chǎn)能過剩,，廠商們無法維持定價能力，被迫虧本出售產(chǎn)品,。而中國政府的低息貸款和其他扶持措施也必然使中國廠商在應(yīng)對壓力時能更為輕松。中國廠商也借此機會搶占市場份額,。

????但事情沒這么簡單,。首先,，自2010年初以來，太陽能面板80%的價格降幅要歸功于生產(chǎn)成本的降低,。在經(jīng)歷技術(shù)創(chuàng)新飛速發(fā)展中的行業(yè)，虧損和政府扶持是很常見的現(xiàn)象,。

????另外，要說到依賴政府,，西方國家太陽能面板制造商也絕對不是沒有得到政府扶持,。如果沒有政府為推廣太陽能提供的慷慨補貼，這些西方制造商可能現(xiàn)在根本不存在,。行業(yè)分析師保拉?明茲表示，在這個行業(yè)30年的發(fā)展歷史里,，太陽能面板在2004-2008年期間的毛利潤率僅僅高于5%,。

????一個不盈利的行業(yè)是不受歡迎的。但懲罰性關(guān)稅只會推高各方成本,，對任何人都沒有好處,，因為正是太陽能板制造商的苦苦支撐才有了旺盛的太陽能需求。補貼只是加速了這個趨勢,。由于整個價值鏈上的成本降低,，即使是沒有任何補貼的太陽能,，在一些縫隙市場也已經(jīng)比石化燃料更有競爭力了,。更大范圍的成本競爭力似乎已經(jīng)觸手可及。

????決策者們需要記住的是,，只要燈能亮起來,，大多數(shù)人不會真的關(guān)心電力的來源,。煤,、石油,、天然氣以及其他綠色能源才是這場太陽能貿(mào)易戰(zhàn)的真正贏家,。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：默默

????A trade war is brewing over solar panels but the casus belli looks shaky. Western manufacturers probably exaggerate the impact of cheap Chinese kit on the industry's health. Panel profits need to rise, but punitive tariffs and possible Chinese retaliation may just make solar energy less competitive.

????Europe's top trade official said earlier this week there were no coordinated talks with the United States to negotiate an end to a trade dispute with China over alleged dumping of solar panels into their respective markets. The EU has until June 5 to decide whether to follow the U.S. by levying punitive tariffs on Chinese panel imports. Trade commissioner Karel de Gucht is said to be mulling duties of more than 40% on Chinese panels, which European manufacturers say account for 80% of European panel sales. The U.S. slapped similarly steep tariffs on Chinese solar panels last year.

????China, meanwhile, threatens duties on polysilicon, the raw material for the panels and a market still dominated by Western manufacturers.

????There's no question that panel-makers are suffering. Three years ago, panel makers' gross margins were 30%, according to IHS, a consultancy. By the end of last year, unable to maintain pricing power because of rampant overcapacity, they were selling their products at a loss. And there is little doubt that cheap credit and other inducements from Beijing have made it easier for Chinese manufacturers to withstand the pressure. They have seized the opportunity to grab market share.

????However, the story is more complicated. To start, falling production costs account for most of the 80% price decline since the beginning of 2010. Losses, and government support, are typical in industries in the midst of rapid technological innovation.

????Also, Western panel-makers are hardly pure when it comes to relying on the government. Without generous subsidies to promote solar power, they would probably not exist at all. In the industry's 30-year history, gross margins on solar panels have only been above 5 percent in the years 2004-2008, according Paula Mints, a solar market analyst.

????An unprofitable industry is undesirable. But punitive duties only push up everyone's costs. That would not serve anyone, since panel-makers' pain has helped support a boom in solar demand. Subsidies have only accelerated the trend. Thanks to falling costs along the whole value chain, even subsidy-free solar is already competitive with fossil fuels in some niche markets, and broader cost-competitiveness seems within reach.

????Policymakers should remember that, as long as the lights come on, most people don't really care where their power comes from. Coal, oil, gas, and rival green energy sources would be the real winners from a solar trade war.