Everyone can take advantage of rooftop solar. The power goes into the grid. This isn’t a zero sum game. We need both.

What's the difference between a new solar farm and new solar panels on roofs (or the ground) ?

Why not both? One works better for people not living in cities, and the other one better for high-density areas.

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

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.

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

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

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

> 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?

Canada isn't poor.

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.

> 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

This is a failure of imagination. There are plenty of things that are more unjust than that.

> 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.

> 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.

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