5 ms·

I'd like someone here to mount a moral case for why driving up the price for regular users of power to subsidise solar panels is acceptable? Would anyone accep

by brc 12y ago

I'd like someone here to mount a moral case for why driving up the price for regular users of power to subsidise solar panels is acceptable? Would anyone accept that increasing gas taxes to give Tesla owners a cash payment is an ethical proposition? The people most affected by increased electricity prices are the poor. These are the people most unlikely to have solar panels. I'm all for allowing people to put their money into whatever they want. I am against subsidies for solar or any other energy, when those subsidies are paid for by the other users. It is very unfair on low income households.

crdoconnor 12y ago
>The people most affected by increased electricity prices are the poor. If you want to see where solar panels have really taken off, you should pay a visit to the third world where the US government isn't subsidizing them.
- adventured 12y ago
  You should check out California. It's one of the world's largest solar markets, and it has really taken off there.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    And Hawaii has taken off even more than California. It thrives wherever electricity is overpriced and there's enough sun.
- bsilvereagle 12y ago
  Demand for solar panels may be higher in some of the third world communities since it is one of the few sources of electricity; there aren't too many grids to connect to.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    Point being that it's one of the few power sources that ARE available to poor people, especially poor people who are not on the grid. It's pretty much just that and diesel generator, in fact.
- brc 12y ago
  And if you asked those people, they'd probably prefer a regular grid so they could use power at night, when domestic consumption is highest.
adventured 12y ago
Here's a potential argument. Global climate change impacts the poor the harshest. They're the least able to cope with it, and can least afford the long-term impact economically and to their food supply. The subsidies to solar assist in building out the long-term technology/energy innovation and infrastructure necessary to combat climate change. Those investments must be made, because we're not going to just magically wake up one day with extremely effective solar, we have to build our way there gradually through university science, commercial R&D and product deployment. I'd argue that the wealthier people buying these panels are paying their fair share of the overall cost when it comes making the energy shift possible, and were even more so in decades past when it was far more expensive and far less efficient. The top 20% pay something around 70% of all income taxes; the bottom ~15% have a negative tax basis; so the wealthy are largely funding the tax credits that they're claiming anyway. The contribution the poor are making in very slightly higher electricity rates, is their fair share of contribution to the solution of climate change. No different than any other product build out in history, in which the rich subsidize most of the expense of new technology, but poorer consumers also have a role to play as prices come down. It's also worth noting that in the US at least, the poor often have subsidized utilities. It's the middle class that is actually taking the bulk of the cost hit you're referring to, not the poor.
- brc 12y ago
  If you are stating that current poverty should be made worse so that the currently ineffectual emissions reductions through the use of solar panels might benefit their grandchildren by changing the arrival date of spring by one day, then that's a completely bankrupt argument. 'Very slightly higher electricity rates', 'fair share of contribution to solution of climate change' The fact is, household solar panels has - rounded off to the nearest whole number - 0% changed the amount of co2 emitted in countries like the United States. This is because there has been no change in gas or coal power generation as a result of solar panels. The entire contribution of solar is still less than 1%. Meanwhile the UK government started collecting statistics on fuel poverty and some areas had 15% fuel poverty - mainly in unemployed households in rented accommodation. This number has doubled since 2005, when 'fight global warming' policies by interfering in the energy market became popular and energy prices have doubled or more. It's incomprehensible to me that anyone can say 'pay more, suckers, I got mine!' when we are talking about energy for people to keep their homes habitable. And all this for an ineffective response to a far-off problem. I cannot fathom the popularity of such thinking, when the same people, if presented with any other taxation or cost increase on poor people to subsidise consumption of rich people - would say that it is unthinkable. It takes 'suffer in silence, it's for your own good' thinking too far.
TaylorAlexander 12y ago
Until we stop subsidizing coal, oil, and gas through direct subsidy, tax breaks, extremely expensive wars and ignoring the effects of pollutants, subsidizing renewables is the only way to make it fair. I am absolutely for removing all subsidies for all forms because I am confident that solar presents a much better value. But ask a politician to suddenly start charging fossil fuel users for our wars and pollution and they'll instantly pull out the line that "raising prices hurts the poor". So subsidizing solar is just more politically feasible. It is certainly not the best solution but reversing a 100 year old industry is basically not going to happen. So if we don't want solar to be at a disadvantage (which would strike me as immoral given the value it offers) we basically have to subsidize it. But soon, unsubsidized solar will be cheaper than our indirectly subsidized fossil fuels. The raw panels already only cost $4000 or so for a 5kw home system, and great effort is underway to reduce the cost of installation and inverters. It is unfair to ask non-fossil fuel users to live in a world polluted by fossil fuels, but nobody ever asked us about that one.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >But soon, unsubsidized solar will be cheaper than our indirectly subsidized fossil fuels It kind of already is, which is why the fossil fuel industry panicked and got Obama to slap tariffs on cheap Chinese solar panels.
krschultz 12y ago
Would anyone accept that increasing gas taxes to give Tesla owners a cash payment is an ethical proposition? Yes, I would accept that. In fact if you consider that we are giving Tesla owners a cash payment when they buy the car, a lot of people accept that proposition. I'm not sure why you think that the people most affected by the increase in electricity prices are the poor. Sure, poor people are more susceptible to all price increases, but is electricity worse than food? Or even gas? Note that your electricity bill is heavily dependent on the size of your house. My current electricity bill, all in, is $50 a month. I live in a 1 BR in NYC. Back when I had a 3BR condo in CT, it was $150-$350 a month. The size of the house factors in a lot. I imagine most poor people don't have bedrooms to spare that they spend a bunch of money air conditioning in the summer. I do know that many low income areas are right next to highways, and that pollution from gasoline powered cars impacts the health in those areas greatly. So if you want to talk about ethics, I think it is very ethically appealing to incentivize people to reduce emissions that are likely harming people near highways a lot more than a slight increase in electrical bills or gas taxes.
- brc 12y ago
  Poor people are often subject to fuel poverty, especially in regions with cold winters. This is established fact, and it's shocking in a world where power can be abundantly generated and distributed that poor people suffer and even die as a result. The cash payments for Teslas are just wrong. Subsidising the purchase of wealthy peoples cars using taxpayer money is indefensible IMO. If I change the vehicle from a Tesla to a turbo diesel BmW SUV, is it still ethical? The X5 has lower emissions as well.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    It's absolutely stupid to argue that we can only subsidize fuel poverty OR electric cars while we spend a trillion dollars on evil wars and another trillion dollars on subsidizing a parasitic banking system. Added to which, subsidies are how almost all countries build up their industries which provide jobs and wealth for all. China didn't get rich by letting its currency float and letting free markets reign.

by brc 12y ago

crdoconnor 12y ago

>The people most affected by increased electricity prices are the poor. If you want to see where solar panels have really taken off, you should pay a visit to the third world where the US government isn't subsidizing them.

adventured 12y ago
You should check out California. It's one of the world's largest solar markets, and it has really taken off there.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  And Hawaii has taken off even more than California. It thrives wherever electricity is overpriced and there's enough sun.
bsilvereagle 12y ago
Demand for solar panels may be higher in some of the third world communities since it is one of the few sources of electricity; there aren't too many grids to connect to.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  Point being that it's one of the few power sources that ARE available to poor people, especially poor people who are not on the grid. It's pretty much just that and diesel generator, in fact.
brc 12y ago
And if you asked those people, they'd probably prefer a regular grid so they could use power at night, when domestic consumption is highest.

adventured 12y ago

Here's a potential argument. Global climate change impacts the poor the harshest. They're the least able to cope with it, and can least afford the long-term impact economically and to their food supply. The subsidies to solar assist in building out the long-term technology/energy innovation and infrastructure necessary to combat climate change. Those investments must be made, because we're not going to just magically wake up one day with extremely effective solar, we have to build our way there gradually through university science, commercial R&D and product deployment. I'd argue that the wealthier people buying these panels are paying their fair share of the overall cost when it comes making the energy shift possible, and were even more so in decades past when it was far more expensive and far less efficient. The top 20% pay something around 70% of all income taxes; the bottom ~15% have a negative tax basis; so the wealthy are largely funding the tax credits that they're claiming anyway. The contribution the poor are making in very slightly higher electricity rates, is their fair share of contribution to the solution of climate change. No different than any other product build out in history, in which the rich subsidize most of the expense of new technology, but poorer consumers also have a role to play as prices come down. It's also worth noting that in the US at least, the poor often have subsidized utilities. It's the middle class that is actually taking the bulk of the cost hit you're referring to, not the poor.

brc 12y ago
If you are stating that current poverty should be made worse so that the currently ineffectual emissions reductions through the use of solar panels might benefit their grandchildren by changing the arrival date of spring by one day, then that's a completely bankrupt argument. 'Very slightly higher electricity rates', 'fair share of contribution to solution of climate change' The fact is, household solar panels has - rounded off to the nearest whole number - 0% changed the amount of co2 emitted in countries like the United States. This is because there has been no change in gas or coal power generation as a result of solar panels. The entire contribution of solar is still less than 1%. Meanwhile the UK government started collecting statistics on fuel poverty and some areas had 15% fuel poverty - mainly in unemployed households in rented accommodation. This number has doubled since 2005, when 'fight global warming' policies by interfering in the energy market became popular and energy prices have doubled or more. It's incomprehensible to me that anyone can say 'pay more, suckers, I got mine!' when we are talking about energy for people to keep their homes habitable. And all this for an ineffective response to a far-off problem. I cannot fathom the popularity of such thinking, when the same people, if presented with any other taxation or cost increase on poor people to subsidise consumption of rich people - would say that it is unthinkable. It takes 'suffer in silence, it's for your own good' thinking too far.

TaylorAlexander 12y ago

Until we stop subsidizing coal, oil, and gas through direct subsidy, tax breaks, extremely expensive wars and ignoring the effects of pollutants, subsidizing renewables is the only way to make it fair. I am absolutely for removing all subsidies for all forms because I am confident that solar presents a much better value. But ask a politician to suddenly start charging fossil fuel users for our wars and pollution and they'll instantly pull out the line that "raising prices hurts the poor". So subsidizing solar is just more politically feasible. It is certainly not the best solution but reversing a 100 year old industry is basically not going to happen. So if we don't want solar to be at a disadvantage (which would strike me as immoral given the value it offers) we basically have to subsidize it. But soon, unsubsidized solar will be cheaper than our indirectly subsidized fossil fuels. The raw panels already only cost $4000 or so for a 5kw home system, and great effort is underway to reduce the cost of installation and inverters. It is unfair to ask non-fossil fuel users to live in a world polluted by fossil fuels, but nobody ever asked us about that one.

crdoconnor 12y ago
>But soon, unsubsidized solar will be cheaper than our indirectly subsidized fossil fuels It kind of already is, which is why the fossil fuel industry panicked and got Obama to slap tariffs on cheap Chinese solar panels.

krschultz 12y ago

Would anyone accept that increasing gas taxes to give Tesla owners a cash payment is an ethical proposition? Yes, I would accept that. In fact if you consider that we are giving Tesla owners a cash payment when they buy the car, a lot of people accept that proposition. I'm not sure why you think that the people most affected by the increase in electricity prices are the poor. Sure, poor people are more susceptible to all price increases, but is electricity worse than food? Or even gas? Note that your electricity bill is heavily dependent on the size of your house. My current electricity bill, all in, is $50 a month. I live in a 1 BR in NYC. Back when I had a 3BR condo in CT, it was $150-$350 a month. The size of the house factors in a lot. I imagine most poor people don't have bedrooms to spare that they spend a bunch of money air conditioning in the summer. I do know that many low income areas are right next to highways, and that pollution from gasoline powered cars impacts the health in those areas greatly. So if you want to talk about ethics, I think it is very ethically appealing to incentivize people to reduce emissions that are likely harming people near highways a lot more than a slight increase in electrical bills or gas taxes.

brc 12y ago
Poor people are often subject to fuel poverty, especially in regions with cold winters. This is established fact, and it's shocking in a world where power can be abundantly generated and distributed that poor people suffer and even die as a result. The cash payments for Teslas are just wrong. Subsidising the purchase of wealthy peoples cars using taxpayer money is indefensible IMO. If I change the vehicle from a Tesla to a turbo diesel BmW SUV, is it still ethical? The X5 has lower emissions as well.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  It's absolutely stupid to argue that we can only subsidize fuel poverty OR electric cars while we spend a trillion dollars on evil wars and another trillion dollars on subsidizing a parasitic banking system. Added to which, subsidies are how almost all countries build up their industries which provide jobs and wealth for all. China didn't get rich by letting its currency float and letting free markets reign.