4 ms·

> Definitely a great deal if you own a home, if I was a renter/condo owner I'd be annoyed that everyone is subsidizing your free solar however. What kind of se

> Definitely a great deal if you own a home, if I was a renter/condo owner I'd be annoyed that everyone is subsidizing your free solar however. What kind of selfish point of view is this? Don't you want people to use energy sources that are better for our entire world, even if it costs you like $10 more in taxes per year? Seems like a no brainer deal if you like "the outside" and you want it to still be there. I'm a renter, been all my life, I'd be happy to pay more in taxes if it means more solar panels for everyone except me. But I also feel the same about elder care, health care and a bunch of other things, do you feel the same for those things too, or this is specifically about solar or owning vs renting?

sneak 10mo ago
There is nothing more unjust than forcing someone to buy something they do not want simply because you think it would be good for them. > Seems like a no brainer deal This is opinion, not fact. I happen to share your opinion, but enshrining opinions in law is almost always going to violate someone’s consent.
- yen223 10mo ago
  I feel like it's worse to force someone to buy something they do not want, knowing full well it's going to materially harm them
  - sneak 10mo ago
    We are in agreement.
- embedding-shape 10mo ago
  > There is nothing more unjust than forcing someone to buy something they do not want simply because you think it would be good for them. Who said that? Taxes are what you pay to be a member of the society you live, and also to help those less fortunate, like your neighbors. You can skip paying those, if you stop living in society, many done that before, and it is still possible.You can't possibly see taxes as "forcing someone to buy something they do not want" right? Two completely different things. And yes, this is all my opinion, like most comments on HN.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago
    > You can skip paying those, if you stop living in society, many done that before, and it is still possible. Actually, generally speaking this is almost certainly not possible for more than short periods of time.
    - embedding-shape 10mo ago
      It certainly is possible, people do it all the time, in various countries. Most of the time we call them "homeless", but also there are people who literally set up camp in the forest then stay there, it isn't unheard of. The book "The Stranger in the Woods" is one such case, about a man who lived in the woods for 27 years by himself. That said, it isn't easy, and it's harder in some countries than others, but I'd still say it's possible in many countries today, YMMV.
      - direwolf20 10mo ago
        And they still benefit from taxes.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago
        Nothing like the exception for proving the rule ...
- vegadw 10mo ago
  > This is opinion, not fact Not OP, but it wasn't presented as a fact. Literally used the word Seams. > There is nothing more unjust than forcing someone to buy something they do not want simply because you think it would be good for them Seatbelts? Circuit breakers? Literally any safety equipment. You're required to have them because it's not just good for you, but expensive to society if hospital beds are low or there's not enough firetrucks to go around. Similarly, if you're polluting more than you have to be due to the source of your electricity, that's bad for everyone. I also rent, but I still understand that it's to the public's benefit that home owners (a class that is already above me in assets and wealth) be given motivation to consume cleaner energy if I don't want to have the climate get even worse. It's the same thing, just the effects feel less direct. That doesn't make them any less valid.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
- amalcon 10mo ago
  This is a failure of imagination. There are plenty of things that are more unjust than that.
ApolloFortyNine 10mo ago
>I'm a renter, been all my life, I'd be happy to pay more in taxes if it means more solar panels for everyone except me. But I also feel the same about elder care, health care and a bunch of other things, do you feel the same for those things too, or this is specifically about solar or owning vs renting? There's an alternative, and almost certainly cheaper per watt with cost of scale, where your tax dollars go to a new solar farm instead, something everyone could take advantage of.
- PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago
  What's the difference between a new solar farm and new solar panels on roofs (or the ground) ?
  - triceratops 10mo ago
    The solar farm produces more energy per dollar spent. Rooftop solar is expensive. It produces comparatively fewer kw to amortize the fixed costs over - permitting, getting up on the roof etc. If a country has abundant land and expensive labor, the money is probably best spent improving grid transmission capacity and otherwise getting the f- out of the way of utility-scale renewables. Places like Pakistan, which is going through a rooftop solar boom, are arguably the opposite - scarce land in the cities, but cheap labor to get up on roofs. Happy to hear any analyses to the contrary and update my knowledge accordingly.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago
      OK, so rooftop solar is a higher <currency-unit>/kW solar farm. That's one argument against it. On the other hand, it is also distributed which from some perspectives is a benefit, and is also do-able with very little planning and grid extension. So that's one argument for it. How things come out on balance depends a bit on what you value and how you imagine the future.
      - triceratops 10mo ago
woodruffw 10mo ago
As a renter, I'm moderately more in favor of utility-scale solar subsidies rather than subsidizing private solar. It seems like another way to make the arrangement more "fair" is to subsidize private solar, but credit the grid up to the original grant's amount. In other words, in the GP's case, they would only get $1000/year in free money for 15 years instead of 20. (This is very low on my list of things that I care about, to be clear.)
SamPatt 10mo ago
>I'm a renter, been all my life, I'd be happy to pay more in taxes if it means more solar panels for everyone except me. That's because you're rich like most people on HN. Environmental protection is a luxury good. This has been proven time and time again. A great reason to prioritize growth and wealth creation. Poor countries don't make those tradeoffs, they're worried about survival not what percentage of their energy usage is renewable.
- embedding-shape 10mo ago
  > That's because you're rich like most people on HN. Probably, but I also haven't been rich all my life, I've also been broke and borderline homeless, and my point of view of paying taxes so others get helped, hasn't changed since then. In fact, probably the reason my perspective is what it is, is because money like that has helped me when I was poor, and I'd like to ensure we continue doing that for others. And I agree, poor countries can't afford to think about "luxury problems" like the pollution in the world, but since we're talking about people living in such countries where we can afford about these problems, lets do that, so the ones who can't, don't have to. Eventually they'll catch up, and maybe at that point we can make it really easy for them to transition to something else?
- youngtaff 10mo ago
  > A great reason to prioritize growth and wealth creation. Poor countries don't make those tradeoffs, they're worried about survival not what percentage of their energy usage is renewable. Tell that to places like Pakistan where solar is allowing people to have cheaper electricity without connecting to the grid
  - SamPatt 10mo ago
    That's exactly my point. They're making decisions based on their economic reality not sacrificing for environmental principles like the above commenter. Solar is great. It can stand on its own without subsidies.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago
JuniperMesos 10mo ago
Maybe I'd prefer to spend the same public money on building nuclear power plants, or gigantic solar panel arrays in the desert, rather than subsidizing individual roof-owners being able to save money on their electricity bill and not mine.
epolanski 10mo ago
Also, more people having solar have the indirect effect to bringing energy prices down for everyone.
colechristensen 10mo ago
>Don't you want people to use energy sources that are better for our entire world, even if it costs you like $10 more in taxes per year? If everyone gets the benefit it's either A) exactly the same cost but with additional government program or B) some form of wealth distribution and not necessarily in a direction you favor Also large solar installations are significantly more cost efficient. Mind you I am IN FAVOR of subsidized residential solar, but let's not pretend government money is free.
- Tor3 10mo ago
  In Japan, where we're currently getting rooftop solar (like nearly every single house everywhere) there are indeed some large solar installations, but the point of rooftop solar (which the government is encouraging) is that it reduces the pressure on the grid itself, and upgrading the grid in Japan to where it should ideally be is a huge, no, astronomical undertaking. For various reasons.
phil21 10mo ago
> What kind of selfish point of view is this? Don't you want people to use energy sources that are better for our entire world, even if it costs you like $10 more in taxes per year? Only if those who make the same or more than me are paying that same tax. After their subsidies of course. Rich folks getting even richer off the backs of poor folks is bad. Even if it's dressed up as good for the environment or whatever justification you want to come up with. As a homeowner, I would not take these subsidies as I find them to be immoral. Doesn't mean I won't be installing solar, but I'm doing it for far different reasons than saving money. By your logic, shouldn't homeowners stop being selfish and just pay for these things themselves in order to make the world a better place? Why do they need renters, other taxpayers, and other ratepayers to subsidize them?
TheSpiceIsLife 10mo ago
> I'd be happy to pay more in taxes Giving money to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
- Tor3 10mo ago
  Not sure how it is where you live, but when I pay taxes they don't go to politicians. The taxes go to health care facilities, infrastructure, education, etc. etc. Only a small percentage goes to pay politicians, and it's all in the open - we know exactly how much each of them is getting.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10mo ago
    And are those programs where capable of delivery anything on time and on budget?
    - Tor3 10mo ago
      Some are, some are not, and some are before time and below budget. In other words, it varies.

sneak 10mo ago

There is nothing more unjust than forcing someone to buy something they do not want simply because you think it would be good for them. > Seems like a no brainer deal This is opinion, not fact. I happen to share your opinion, but enshrining opinions in law is almost always going to violate someone’s consent.

yen223 10mo ago
I feel like it's worse to force someone to buy something they do not want, knowing full well it's going to materially harm them
- sneak 10mo ago
  We are in agreement.
embedding-shape 10mo ago
> There is nothing more unjust than forcing someone to buy something they do not want simply because you think it would be good for them. Who said that? Taxes are what you pay to be a member of the society you live, and also to help those less fortunate, like your neighbors. You can skip paying those, if you stop living in society, many done that before, and it is still possible.You can't possibly see taxes as "forcing someone to buy something they do not want" right? Two completely different things. And yes, this is all my opinion, like most comments on HN.
- PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago
  > You can skip paying those, if you stop living in society, many done that before, and it is still possible. Actually, generally speaking this is almost certainly not possible for more than short periods of time.
  - embedding-shape 10mo ago
    It certainly is possible, people do it all the time, in various countries. Most of the time we call them "homeless", but also there are people who literally set up camp in the forest then stay there, it isn't unheard of. The book "The Stranger in the Woods" is one such case, about a man who lived in the woods for 27 years by himself. That said, it isn't easy, and it's harder in some countries than others, but I'd still say it's possible in many countries today, YMMV.
    - direwolf20 10mo ago
      And they still benefit from taxes.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago
      Nothing like the exception for proving the rule ...
vegadw 10mo ago
> This is opinion, not fact Not OP, but it wasn't presented as a fact. Literally used the word Seams. > There is nothing more unjust than forcing someone to buy something they do not want simply because you think it would be good for them Seatbelts? Circuit breakers? Literally any safety equipment. You're required to have them because it's not just good for you, but expensive to society if hospital beds are low or there's not enough firetrucks to go around. Similarly, if you're polluting more than you have to be due to the source of your electricity, that's bad for everyone. I also rent, but I still understand that it's to the public's benefit that home owners (a class that is already above me in assets and wealth) be given motivation to consume cleaner energy if I don't want to have the climate get even worse. It's the same thing, just the effects feel less direct. That doesn't make them any less valid.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
amalcon 10mo ago
This is a failure of imagination. There are plenty of things that are more unjust than that.

ApolloFortyNine 10mo ago

>I'm a renter, been all my life, I'd be happy to pay more in taxes if it means more solar panels for everyone except me. But I also feel the same about elder care, health care and a bunch of other things, do you feel the same for those things too, or this is specifically about solar or owning vs renting? There's an alternative, and almost certainly cheaper per watt with cost of scale, where your tax dollars go to a new solar farm instead, something everyone could take advantage of.

PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago
What's the difference between a new solar farm and new solar panels on roofs (or the ground) ?
- triceratops 10mo ago
  The solar farm produces more energy per dollar spent. Rooftop solar is expensive. It produces comparatively fewer kw to amortize the fixed costs over - permitting, getting up on the roof etc. If a country has abundant land and expensive labor, the money is probably best spent improving grid transmission capacity and otherwise getting the f- out of the way of utility-scale renewables. Places like Pakistan, which is going through a rooftop solar boom, are arguably the opposite - scarce land in the cities, but cheap labor to get up on roofs. Happy to hear any analyses to the contrary and update my knowledge accordingly.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago
    OK, so rooftop solar is a higher <currency-unit>/kW solar farm. That's one argument against it. On the other hand, it is also distributed which from some perspectives is a benefit, and is also do-able with very little planning and grid extension. So that's one argument for it. How things come out on balance depends a bit on what you value and how you imagine the future.
    - triceratops 10mo ago

woodruffw 10mo ago

As a renter, I'm moderately more in favor of utility-scale solar subsidies rather than subsidizing private solar. It seems like another way to make the arrangement more "fair" is to subsidize private solar, but credit the grid up to the original grant's amount. In other words, in the GP's case, they would only get $1000/year in free money for 15 years instead of 20. (This is very low on my list of things that I care about, to be clear.)

SamPatt 10mo ago

>I'm a renter, been all my life, I'd be happy to pay more in taxes if it means more solar panels for everyone except me. That's because you're rich like most people on HN. Environmental protection is a luxury good. This has been proven time and time again. A great reason to prioritize growth and wealth creation. Poor countries don't make those tradeoffs, they're worried about survival not what percentage of their energy usage is renewable.

embedding-shape 10mo ago
> That's because you're rich like most people on HN. Probably, but I also haven't been rich all my life, I've also been broke and borderline homeless, and my point of view of paying taxes so others get helped, hasn't changed since then. In fact, probably the reason my perspective is what it is, is because money like that has helped me when I was poor, and I'd like to ensure we continue doing that for others. And I agree, poor countries can't afford to think about "luxury problems" like the pollution in the world, but since we're talking about people living in such countries where we can afford about these problems, lets do that, so the ones who can't, don't have to. Eventually they'll catch up, and maybe at that point we can make it really easy for them to transition to something else?
youngtaff 10mo ago
> A great reason to prioritize growth and wealth creation. Poor countries don't make those tradeoffs, they're worried about survival not what percentage of their energy usage is renewable. Tell that to places like Pakistan where solar is allowing people to have cheaper electricity without connecting to the grid
- SamPatt 10mo ago
  That's exactly my point. They're making decisions based on their economic reality not sacrificing for environmental principles like the above commenter. Solar is great. It can stand on its own without subsidies.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago

JuniperMesos 10mo ago

Maybe I'd prefer to spend the same public money on building nuclear power plants, or gigantic solar panel arrays in the desert, rather than subsidizing individual roof-owners being able to save money on their electricity bill and not mine.

epolanski 10mo ago

Also, more people having solar have the indirect effect to bringing energy prices down for everyone.

colechristensen 10mo ago

>Don't you want people to use energy sources that are better for our entire world, even if it costs you like $10 more in taxes per year? If everyone gets the benefit it's either A) exactly the same cost but with additional government program or B) some form of wealth distribution and not necessarily in a direction you favor Also large solar installations are significantly more cost efficient. Mind you I am IN FAVOR of subsidized residential solar, but let's not pretend government money is free.

Tor3 10mo ago
In Japan, where we're currently getting rooftop solar (like nearly every single house everywhere) there are indeed some large solar installations, but the point of rooftop solar (which the government is encouraging) is that it reduces the pressure on the grid itself, and upgrading the grid in Japan to where it should ideally be is a huge, no, astronomical undertaking. For various reasons.

phil21 10mo ago

> What kind of selfish point of view is this? Don't you want people to use energy sources that are better for our entire world, even if it costs you like $10 more in taxes per year? Only if those who make the same or more than me are paying that same tax. After their subsidies of course. Rich folks getting even richer off the backs of poor folks is bad. Even if it's dressed up as good for the environment or whatever justification you want to come up with. As a homeowner, I would not take these subsidies as I find them to be immoral. Doesn't mean I won't be installing solar, but I'm doing it for far different reasons than saving money. By your logic, shouldn't homeowners stop being selfish and just pay for these things themselves in order to make the world a better place? Why do they need renters, other taxpayers, and other ratepayers to subsidize them?

TheSpiceIsLife 10mo ago

> I'd be happy to pay more in taxes Giving money to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

Tor3 10mo ago
Not sure how it is where you live, but when I pay taxes they don't go to politicians. The taxes go to health care facilities, infrastructure, education, etc. etc. Only a small percentage goes to pay politicians, and it's all in the open - we know exactly how much each of them is getting.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10mo ago
  And are those programs where capable of delivery anything on time and on budget?
  - Tor3 10mo ago
    Some are, some are not, and some are before time and below budget. In other words, it varies.