>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.

▲

philipkglass 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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

	▲	nradov 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Right, so that implies there's no need for homeowner subsidies in wealthy, developed countries.
	▲	bojan 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> Solar hardware is so affordable now that it's booming even in poorer countries. Even in Gaza Strip you'll see sometimes solar panels next to the refugee camps, and broken ones on top of the ruins.
	▲	SamPatt 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes it's awesome to see solar adoption without subsidies. Wonderful technology. Decentralized energy production is powerful.

▲

PaulDavisThe1st 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

How do you compensate your neighbors for the loss of garden view caused by your house?

	▲	embedding-shape 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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?

▲

AlexandrB 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Environmental protection may be a long-term investment, but reducing CO2 emission is probably not. The results are too diffuse and you're at the mercy of other countries' energy policy. If you're a small country, you can invest in CO2 reduction all you want, but what actually happens will be up to the US, China, and India.

▲

amarant 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

▲

embedding-shape 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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?

▲

earlyriser 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

	▲	SamPatt 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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

▲

hlk 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

▲

youngtaff 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

tonyarkles an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Keep in mind the standard of living. If you’re in a country that experiences routine long power outages, having a solar panel that you can use to charge your phone during the day is pretty great. Having to get ahold of and burn diesel fuel is not so great. Doesn’t produce at night? Doesn’t matter much, it’s better than nothing.

▲

jvergeldedios 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is line that connects gov't subsidies in wealthy countries for the last 50 years funding private R&D to poorer countries being able to afford it. Arguably the poorer countries don't get to make the "decisions based on economic reality" in favor of solar without the subsidies in wealthy countries happening first. There is also an argument to be made that the R&D isn't finished and it still makes sense to subsidize it to drive the cost down further.

	▲	phil21 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> There is also an argument to be made that the R&D isn't finished and it still makes sense to subsidize it to drive the cost down further. Maybe there is an argument to be made, but it sounds like a very poor one if poor countries are now putting up solar panels because it's the cheapest form of energy production. Sounds like subsidizing the same panels going up on houses is a bit silly now that the costs have shifted so much. The argument can probably be made for direct subsidies of R&D for bleeding edge solar tech, and perhaps even battery installations to get volume up. Or maybe even subsidizing local production vs. buying everything from China. The arguments for wealthy countries to subsidize their wealthiest citizens to install solar for personal gain seems rather weak at this point in the game. It certainly made sense 20 years ago, but in most areas where it makes economic sense to begin with solar penetration has hit a tipping point.

▲

PaulDavisThe1st 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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 3 hours ago | parent [-]

At an individual level? Agreed.

But at a national level the data is compelling. I'm convinced by the Environmental Kuznets Curve.

	▲	jgraham an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> 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).

▲

triceratops 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Canada isn't poor.

▲

SamPatt 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

wasabi991011 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We have progressive tax rates in Canada which should offset this to some extent.

Also, you keep ignoring that the environment is a public good. Poor people in Canada will also be disproportionately impacted by bigger temperature extremes (heat waves, extreme cold), worse air quality, etc.)

▲

triceratops 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

tonyarkles an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Does Canada not have progressive taxation? How do poor people pay more than rich people?

It’s not that they’re paying more than rich people. It’s that even with progressive taxation, tax(everything the government currently spends money on) < tax(current spending + solar subsidies). That is to say… giving solar subsidies to rich people causes the tax paid by everyone to increase. Those making more money pay a larger fraction of the increase because of progressive taxation but everyone who is paying taxes pays incrementally more when the government spends more money.

▲

AlexandrB 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

	▲	testing22321 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Great, if the break ground today the first nuke will be online in absolute minimum 10 years (likely 20) and cost absolute minimum of $15 billion (likely closer to $30 billion) Do you want to guess how cheap solar will be in 10-20 years, and how much power we could generate in the mean time. This is not a discussion worth having.
	▲	triceratops 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Canada already has lots of nuclear: 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.

▲

nuancebydefault 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Rich people are usually early adopters of new technology. That's how technology gets cheaper. It's fortunate and unfortunate at the same time.

▲

GuinansEyebrows 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.