4 ms·

>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 p

by SamPatt 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo ago
    > They're making decisions based on their economic reality not sacrificing for environmental principles You don't know this, and to some degree likely cannot know this.
    - SamPatt 9mo ago
      At an individual level? Agreed. But at a national level the data is compelling. I'm convinced by the Environmental Kuznets Curve.
      - jgraham 9mo ago
        > But at a national level the data is compelling. I'm convinced by the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Which data do you find compelling? For people who don't know the Environmental Kuznets Curve is basically the hypothesis that as economies grow past a certain they naturally start to cause less environmental damage. As far as I can tell the main empirical evidence in favour of this is the fact that some western countries have managed to maintain economic growth whilst making reductions to their carbon emissions. This has, of course, partially been driven by offshoring especially polluting industries, but also as a result of technological developments like renewable energy, and BEVs. On the other hand, taking a global sample it's still rather clear that there's a strong correlation between wealth and carbon emissions, both at the individual scale and at the level of countries. It's also clear that a lot of the gains that have been made in, say, Europe have been low-hanging fruit that won't be easy to repeat. For example migrating off coal power has a huge impact, but going from there to a fully clean grid is a larger challenge. We also know that there are a bunch of behaviours that come with wealth which have a disproportionately negative effect on the environment. For example, rich people (globally) consume more meat, and take more flights. Those are both problems without clear solutions. (FWIW I agree that solar power is somewhat regressive, but just for the normal "Vimes Boots Theory" reasons that anyone who is able to install solar will save money in the medium term. That requires the capital for the equipment — which is rapidly getting cheaper — but also the ability to own land or a house to install the equipment on. The latter favours the already well off. There are similar problems with electric cars having higher upfront costs but lower running costs. The correct solution is not to discourage people from using things, but to take the cost of being poor into account in other areas of public policy).
philipkglass 9mo ago
Solar hardware is so affordable now that it's booming even in poorer countries. The most remarkable recent example is Pakistan, which has seen explosive growth of rooftop solar power, most of it receiving no government subsidies: Pakistan has imported almost 45 gigawatts worth of solar panels over the last five or six years, which is equal to the total capacity of its electricity grid. Almost 34 gigawatts have come in only in the last couple of years. It’s a very bottom-up revolution. This is not government deciding this is the route to take. And it’s not being driven by climate concerns, it’s all about the economics. Renewables are out-competing the traditional sources of energy. https://e360.yale.edu/features/pakistan-solar-boom https://e360.yale.edu/features/pakistan-solar-boom
- SamPatt 9mo ago
  Yes it's awesome to see solar adoption without subsidies. Wonderful technology. Decentralized energy production is powerful.
- nradov 9mo ago
  Right, so that implies there's no need for homeowner subsidies in wealthy, developed countries.
  - zdp7 9mo ago
    Not really, unless you are just guessing. A quick read shows that solar gained popularity because of an unreliable grid and a removal of subsidies on diesel. Solar ended up being the cheaper and more reliable option. Labor costs for installation are also lower. In remote areas you may not even have a grid option. Simple general assumptions don't hold across vastly different geopolitical circumstances.
    - nradov 9mo ago
      Right, so there's still no need for subsidies.
  - pfdietz 9mo ago
    What's needed are Pigouvian CO2 taxes, but those aren't politically feasible.
PaulDavisThe1st 9mo ago
Great job of indirectly implying that there must be a tradeoff. Funny thing though: those poor countries? They're not building nuclear, or oil fired, or coal fired, or natural gas plants. They're installing solar. Not necessarily because they care about what percentage of their energy usage is renewable, but because there is no tradeoff. Further, environmental protection is not a luxury good, it's a long term investment. Ask me more in another 30-50 years when the larger impacts of climate change are happening. Or ask someone else about how much we've spent on superfund cleanup sites.
- SamPatt 9mo ago
  Everything has a tradeoff. That's a foundational truth of economics. Environmental protection is a luxury good in economic terms. The Environmental Kuznets Curve is compelling to me. It's extremely difficult to assess the ROI on long term investments, particularly when your country has unstable rule of law or conflict. I'm pro-solar, it's amazing technology that empowers individuals and communities. I just don't agree that everything I love I must force other people to pay for.
  - direwolf20 9mo ago
    How do you compensate your neighbors for the loss of garden view caused by your house?
    - embedding-shape 9mo ago
      Is that something you usually have to pay your neighbors where you live? If you put up some ugly thing in your garden you have to pay your neighbors?
      - direwolf20 9mo ago
        Sam said he doesn't force other people to pay for things he loves, so I'm wondering how he doesn't force his neighbors to pay for his house with their view.
- 9mo ago
triceratops 9mo ago
Canada isn't poor.
- SamPatt 9mo ago
  Agreed. But there are poor people in Canada, and forcing them to pay more money (and slightly lowering their own quality of life) so that wealthier Canadians can install solar panels is, at least, a debatable policy.
  - triceratops 9mo ago
    Does Canada not have progressive taxation? How do poor people pay more than rich people? To be clear, I don't think rooftop solar subsidies are the best use of government money either. Governments should subsidize utility-scale solar, EVs, efficient buildings, and mass transit. They should focus on cheaper and more efficient permitting, and better grids.
    - AlexandrB 9mo ago
      Canada should invest in Nuclear. Solar is far less efficient in Canada than somewhere like California - whether rooftop or utility-scale. The short winter days, low angle of incidence, and snow means that panels are basically non-operative for 3-4 months a year. This is a huge problem if you also want people to switch to efficient electric-powered heating in the form of heat pumps.
      - triceratops 9mo ago
        Canada already has lots of nuclear: https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?entity=Canada https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?ent... The efficiency of solar does not matter in 2026. Panels are so cheap that just you don't have to think about it if you have abundant land. If solar is 4x less productive in the winter you just build 4x as many panels. Panels have to be angled more vertical the further north you go so the snow will just slide off. They are not "non-operative 3-4 months a year" - this is just Big Oil FUD.
hlk 9mo ago
Turkey is a poorer country and has more wind and solar capacity by percentage than US.
earlyriser 9mo ago
Poor countries are switching to solar: https://climatedrift.substack.com/p/why-solarpunk-is-already-happening https://climatedrift.substack.com/p/why-solarpunk-is-already...
- SamPatt 9mo ago
  Yes, and it's wonderful to see. As the article itself explains, this isn't due to government led redistribution of wealth anymore: > The 20th century infrastructure model was: > Centralized generation > Government-led > Megaproject financing > 30-year timelines >Monopolistic utilities > The 21st century infrastructure model is: > Distributed/modular > Private sector-led > PAYG financing > Deploy in days/weeks > Competitive markets
GuinansEyebrows 9mo ago
the only reason environmental protection could conceivably be considered a luxury (and not a necessity) is because certain sectors of the capital class refuse to convert their means of production away from generating waste and pollution. that's it. time and time again we see direct action by Chevron, BP, Shell, Exxon, ARAMCO et al to stifle change, refuse scientific evidence of the nature of their pollution, and attack anyone who comes anywhere near impacting their bottom line. look at Steven Donzinger if you need proof of this. this is not a matter of some fictional invisible hand. these are decisions made by real people who do not care about you, society, the health of the environment or the people who inhabit it. stop carrying their water.
amarant 9mo ago
Environmental protection IS about survival for poor countries. YOU can afford to not care and burn gas because you won't have your life completely and permanently destroyed by global warming. Poor people don't have that luxury. Rethink your position because it's completely upside down
two_handfuls 9mo ago
> Environmental protection is a luxury good. This has been proven time and time again. I see this lie repeated in many places. Environmental protection is much, much cheaper than the alternative.

by SamPatt 9mo ago

embedding-shape 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo ago
  > They're making decisions based on their economic reality not sacrificing for environmental principles You don't know this, and to some degree likely cannot know this.
  - SamPatt 9mo ago
    At an individual level? Agreed. But at a national level the data is compelling. I'm convinced by the Environmental Kuznets Curve.
    - jgraham 9mo ago
      > But at a national level the data is compelling. I'm convinced by the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Which data do you find compelling? For people who don't know the Environmental Kuznets Curve is basically the hypothesis that as economies grow past a certain they naturally start to cause less environmental damage. As far as I can tell the main empirical evidence in favour of this is the fact that some western countries have managed to maintain economic growth whilst making reductions to their carbon emissions. This has, of course, partially been driven by offshoring especially polluting industries, but also as a result of technological developments like renewable energy, and BEVs. On the other hand, taking a global sample it's still rather clear that there's a strong correlation between wealth and carbon emissions, both at the individual scale and at the level of countries. It's also clear that a lot of the gains that have been made in, say, Europe have been low-hanging fruit that won't be easy to repeat. For example migrating off coal power has a huge impact, but going from there to a fully clean grid is a larger challenge. We also know that there are a bunch of behaviours that come with wealth which have a disproportionately negative effect on the environment. For example, rich people (globally) consume more meat, and take more flights. Those are both problems without clear solutions. (FWIW I agree that solar power is somewhat regressive, but just for the normal "Vimes Boots Theory" reasons that anyone who is able to install solar will save money in the medium term. That requires the capital for the equipment — which is rapidly getting cheaper — but also the ability to own land or a house to install the equipment on. The latter favours the already well off. There are similar problems with electric cars having higher upfront costs but lower running costs. The correct solution is not to discourage people from using things, but to take the cost of being poor into account in other areas of public policy).

philipkglass 9mo ago

Solar hardware is so affordable now that it's booming even in poorer countries. The most remarkable recent example is Pakistan, which has seen explosive growth of rooftop solar power, most of it receiving no government subsidies: Pakistan has imported almost 45 gigawatts worth of solar panels over the last five or six years, which is equal to the total capacity of its electricity grid. Almost 34 gigawatts have come in only in the last couple of years. It’s a very bottom-up revolution. This is not government deciding this is the route to take. And it’s not being driven by climate concerns, it’s all about the economics. Renewables are out-competing the traditional sources of energy. https://e360.yale.edu/features/pakistan-solar-boom https://e360.yale.edu/features/pakistan-solar-boom

SamPatt 9mo ago
Yes it's awesome to see solar adoption without subsidies. Wonderful technology. Decentralized energy production is powerful.
nradov 9mo ago
Right, so that implies there's no need for homeowner subsidies in wealthy, developed countries.
- zdp7 9mo ago
  Not really, unless you are just guessing. A quick read shows that solar gained popularity because of an unreliable grid and a removal of subsidies on diesel. Solar ended up being the cheaper and more reliable option. Labor costs for installation are also lower. In remote areas you may not even have a grid option. Simple general assumptions don't hold across vastly different geopolitical circumstances.
  - nradov 9mo ago
    Right, so there's still no need for subsidies.
- pfdietz 9mo ago
  What's needed are Pigouvian CO2 taxes, but those aren't politically feasible.

PaulDavisThe1st 9mo ago

Great job of indirectly implying that there must be a tradeoff. Funny thing though: those poor countries? They're not building nuclear, or oil fired, or coal fired, or natural gas plants. They're installing solar. Not necessarily because they care about what percentage of their energy usage is renewable, but because there is no tradeoff. Further, environmental protection is not a luxury good, it's a long term investment. Ask me more in another 30-50 years when the larger impacts of climate change are happening. Or ask someone else about how much we've spent on superfund cleanup sites.

SamPatt 9mo ago
Everything has a tradeoff. That's a foundational truth of economics. Environmental protection is a luxury good in economic terms. The Environmental Kuznets Curve is compelling to me. It's extremely difficult to assess the ROI on long term investments, particularly when your country has unstable rule of law or conflict. I'm pro-solar, it's amazing technology that empowers individuals and communities. I just don't agree that everything I love I must force other people to pay for.
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  How do you compensate your neighbors for the loss of garden view caused by your house?
  - embedding-shape 9mo ago
    Is that something you usually have to pay your neighbors where you live? If you put up some ugly thing in your garden you have to pay your neighbors?
    - direwolf20 9mo ago
      Sam said he doesn't force other people to pay for things he loves, so I'm wondering how he doesn't force his neighbors to pay for his house with their view.
9mo ago

triceratops 9mo ago

Canada isn't poor.

SamPatt 9mo ago
Agreed. But there are poor people in Canada, and forcing them to pay more money (and slightly lowering their own quality of life) so that wealthier Canadians can install solar panels is, at least, a debatable policy.
- triceratops 9mo ago
  Does Canada not have progressive taxation? How do poor people pay more than rich people? To be clear, I don't think rooftop solar subsidies are the best use of government money either. Governments should subsidize utility-scale solar, EVs, efficient buildings, and mass transit. They should focus on cheaper and more efficient permitting, and better grids.
  - AlexandrB 9mo ago
    Canada should invest in Nuclear. Solar is far less efficient in Canada than somewhere like California - whether rooftop or utility-scale. The short winter days, low angle of incidence, and snow means that panels are basically non-operative for 3-4 months a year. This is a huge problem if you also want people to switch to efficient electric-powered heating in the form of heat pumps.
    - triceratops 9mo ago
      Canada already has lots of nuclear: https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?entity=Canada https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?ent... The efficiency of solar does not matter in 2026. Panels are so cheap that just you don't have to think about it if you have abundant land. If solar is 4x less productive in the winter you just build 4x as many panels. Panels have to be angled more vertical the further north you go so the snow will just slide off. They are not "non-operative 3-4 months a year" - this is just Big Oil FUD.

hlk 9mo ago

Turkey is a poorer country and has more wind and solar capacity by percentage than US.

earlyriser 9mo ago

Poor countries are switching to solar: https://climatedrift.substack.com/p/why-solarpunk-is-already-happening https://climatedrift.substack.com/p/why-solarpunk-is-already...

SamPatt 9mo ago
Yes, and it's wonderful to see. As the article itself explains, this isn't due to government led redistribution of wealth anymore: > The 20th century infrastructure model was: > Centralized generation > Government-led > Megaproject financing > 30-year timelines >Monopolistic utilities > The 21st century infrastructure model is: > Distributed/modular > Private sector-led > PAYG financing > Deploy in days/weeks > Competitive markets

GuinansEyebrows 9mo ago

the only reason environmental protection could conceivably be considered a luxury (and not a necessity) is because certain sectors of the capital class refuse to convert their means of production away from generating waste and pollution. that's it. time and time again we see direct action by Chevron, BP, Shell, Exxon, ARAMCO et al to stifle change, refuse scientific evidence of the nature of their pollution, and attack anyone who comes anywhere near impacting their bottom line. look at Steven Donzinger if you need proof of this. this is not a matter of some fictional invisible hand. these are decisions made by real people who do not care about you, society, the health of the environment or the people who inhabit it. stop carrying their water.

amarant 9mo ago

Environmental protection IS about survival for poor countries. YOU can afford to not care and burn gas because you won't have your life completely and permanently destroyed by global warming. Poor people don't have that luxury. Rethink your position because it's completely upside down

two_handfuls 9mo ago

> Environmental protection is a luxury good. This has been proven time and time again. I see this lie repeated in many places. Environmental protection is much, much cheaper than the alternative.