3 ms·

I think it is important to remember that anti-renewables messaging has been around for a very long time. The panels might have needed to come off for repairs bu

I think it is important to remember that anti-renewables messaging has been around for a very long time. The panels might have needed to come off for repairs but definitely could have been put back up. Casually discarding even a public relations action like this likely had negative impacts on the discussion and many people taking the issue seriously for years to come. I don't know specifically how anti-renewables Regan was personally, but he definitely was the leader of a party that most strongly fought climate change messaging and actions in recent years. Here is Carl Sagan testifying before congress in 1985 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp-WiNXH6hI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp-WiNXH6hI Admittedly this hasn't necessarily been as strongly polarizing as it was during the 2010s, there was a time that it was a bipartisan issue that unified both parties in the interest of reducing foreign energy dependence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzDjjUAt3zc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzDjjUAt3zc

fsociety999 5y ago
Right. Very valid point. It’s entirely possible removing them was partially politically motivated or perhaps more accurately, it was politically motivated to LEAVE them off after the work was complete. It has traditionally not been in the best interests of many politicians (in both parties) to promote renewable energy over fossil fuels sadly. It may have changed since then, but even the “Green New Deal” originally did not include cutting tax subsidies for fossil fuels as part of its terms.
- dylan604 5y ago
  > tax subsidies for fossil fuels Does an industry that produces billions of dollars in profit per quarter really need subsidies?
  - jaltekruse 5y ago
    I think we're seeing pretty clear evidence of it right now. Americans in sprawling cities that get used to low gas prices buy giant gas guzzling cars and then freak out like none other when prices go up. The subsidies are almost certainly helping to line some investor and executive pockets, but they probably also have some effect driving down prices.
brimble 5y ago
I remember my dad talking, in the 90s, about how silly the solar panels were and how good it was that Reagan took them off. It's how I became aware of that having happened, in the first place, in fact. Whatever the intent behind removing them, by the time it filtered through pop culture and the media, the message was "Reagan thinks the solar panels were dumb and wasteful and you should too".

fsociety999 5y ago

Right. Very valid point. It’s entirely possible removing them was partially politically motivated or perhaps more accurately, it was politically motivated to LEAVE them off after the work was complete. It has traditionally not been in the best interests of many politicians (in both parties) to promote renewable energy over fossil fuels sadly. It may have changed since then, but even the “Green New Deal” originally did not include cutting tax subsidies for fossil fuels as part of its terms.

dylan604 5y ago
> tax subsidies for fossil fuels Does an industry that produces billions of dollars in profit per quarter really need subsidies?
- jaltekruse 5y ago
  I think we're seeing pretty clear evidence of it right now. Americans in sprawling cities that get used to low gas prices buy giant gas guzzling cars and then freak out like none other when prices go up. The subsidies are almost certainly helping to line some investor and executive pockets, but they probably also have some effect driving down prices.

brimble 5y ago

I remember my dad talking, in the 90s, about how silly the solar panels were and how good it was that Reagan took them off. It's how I became aware of that having happened, in the first place, in fact. Whatever the intent behind removing them, by the time it filtered through pop culture and the media, the message was "Reagan thinks the solar panels were dumb and wasteful and you should too".