As the issue of alleged Chinese spy Yang Tenbo’s (杨腾波) relationship with Prince Andrew was raised in Parliament last week, a wide-ranging discussion about the U.K.’s relationship with China landed on a recurring theme: the U.K.’s reliance on China for solar panels.
“[W]hy are we still buying from China huge numbers of solar arrays that have demonstrably been made using slave labor?” Member of Parliament Iain Duncan Smith asked. “[F]ar from challenging China on human rights, it now appears that we are turning a blind eye.”
Questions about human rights keep turning up because U.K. industry relies heavily on Chinese materials, and there is evidence of a range of human rights violations in their production, including forced labor.
That presents an apparent dilemma. On the one hand, there is the idea of a fast and cheap green transition. On the other hand, there is the idea of a clean human rights chain.
Is there a way out of the bind?
Potential Solar Solutions
Some of the most fervent political voices speaking out against solar from China tend not to simultaneously advocate for an alternative, which makes their positioning simpler. In this instance, Iain Duncan Smith’s Conservative Party gave no firm commitment to solar expansion in their last manifesto, and Iain Duncan Smith’s office did not respond when asked how they would replace the provision of Chinese panels.
But there are those with commitments on both issues.
The Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region, for instance, argues in favor of a transition that is not “built on an acceptance of and complicity in human rights abuses.”
“Currently the global supply of solar panels relies heavily on the Uyghur Region and is tainted with risks of state-imposed forced labour,” a spokesperson for Anti-Slavery International and the Coalition to End Forced Labor in the Uyghur Region, told Domino Theory.
“The UK Government must urgently invest in alternative forms of supply and introduce complementary laws that would force businesses to clean up their supply chains, and import controls to stop the import of goods made with forced labour.”
Two Routes
Within those terms, there are broadly two routes forward.
Option one is supply chain diversification — buying solar panels from elsewhere.
A report from Brussels-based economic think tank Bruegel last year proposed developing a partnership of countries that can together supplement China’s solar contribution.
The view there is that no single country can take over China’s role, but in time, a group of like-minded countries could do so.
However, that report did not offer a timeline for how long such a transition would take. And with 2030 climate goals fast approaching (and already being missed), the position of many closer to the industry appears to favor option two: cleaning up existing supply chains.
The Clean-Up
“Its a somewhat unique situation,” professor of Environmental Studies at San Jose State University, Dustin Mulvaney told Domino Theory.
“Much of the problems caused to the industry because of the forced labor issues were because the industry did not have traceability and transparency in supply chains. So I break the dichotomy by saying we should be for transparent supply chains so in the event of a forced labor issue, it can be quickly resolved.”
This idea matches the positioning of Solar Energy U.K. — a grouping which advocates for solar developments in the U.K.
It told Domino Theory it is “not a realistic expectation” that solar panels could be procured entirely from elsewhere and instead said it works with “counterparts in Brussels, SolarPower Europe, to develop the Solar Stewardship Initiative, intended to deliver a more responsible, transparent, and sustainable value chain.”
The Solar Stewardship Initiative released a first draft of a “traceability standard” earlier this year and a certification system designed to “strengthen confidence in how the materials and products in the solar supply chain are manufactured and used.” Procuring members have also signed our supply chain statement.
This is not an arbitrary antidote. The mechanism addresses a specific issue.
With polysilicon — the grains of silicon used to make the photovoltaic cells which line solar panels — “some materials are sold on forward contracts and others on the spot market and that means materials get blended,” Mulvaney explained. “So Xinjiang at one point was supplying over 40% of polysilicon but it was getting blended into something like 75% of panels or more (we don’t know).”
Solar manufacturers in Xinjiang have been implicated in so-called “labor transfer” initiatives that have been revealed to operate within an environment of coercion, backed by the threat of re-education and internment. So this is a key target of any transparency initiatives.
Another benefit of this approach is that it also tackles human rights issues outside of China. “Geographical diversification probably helps… but there also have been forced labor issues in Malaysia,” Mulvaney pointed out.
Remaining Issues
There are, though, remaining issues with a transparency approach.
“There is also the issue of coal use in the supply chain that means the solar made on forced labor is probably only saving half of the emissions it would otherwise if [built] with no coal electricity/heat. So there are climate benefits from geographical diversification as well,” Mulvaney noted.
Additionally, one industry insider, working on handing out government grants for small-scale solar projects, noted that while they give advice on procurement, it is not legally binding, and essentially responsibility was deferred to the individual stakeholders.
In other words, there is enough here to suggest that this topic will not simply one day be solved with a single government policy. There are large amounts of political will and technocratic work to be summoned, whichever direction is committed to.
One suggestion might be that the more hawkish M.P.’s join the party in terms of advocating for solutions as well as presenting critiques whenever Prince Andrew makes the news.
Leave a Reply