That's why it will require a functional government who can use taxes responsibly to make the technology affordable to everyone. The US had a pretty good start until one man decided to stop and try to reverse any progress made.

▲

mullingitover 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not one man, he's financially backed by the wealthiest people in the world and politically supported by millions.

Acting like this blunder is some random stroke of bad luck isn't telling the whole story.

	▲	tialaramex 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Trump's animus against wind in particular is definitely specific to the man. He was annoyed by a wind farm in Scotland. Trump of course thinks he's one of those old fashioned kings† (and the US has been annoyingly willing to go along with that, how are those "checks and balances" and your "co-equal branches of government" working out for you?) and so he thought the local government would go along with his whims and prohibit the wind farm but they did not. I'm sure there's some degree of vested interest in protecting fossil energy because it means very concentrated profits in a way that renewables do not. Sunlight isn't owned by anybody (modulo Simpsons references) and nor is the Wind, but I'd expect that, if that was all it was, to manifest as diverting funding to transitional work, stuff that keeps $$$ in the right men's pockets, rather than trying to do a King Canute. Stuff like paying a wind farm not to be constructed feels very Trump-specific. † The British even know what you do with kings who refuse to stop breaking the law. See Charles the First, though that's technically the English I suspect in this respect the Scots can follow along. If the King won't follow the Law, kill the King, problem solved.

▲

gamblor956 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But why should American taxpayers be responsible for making the technology affordable for everyone? Why shouldn't Europe or China be expected to shoulder this financial burden?

EDIT: I think people are misunderstanding my response. I fully support local subsidies for solar and renewables. My question is why my tax dollars should go toward making it affordable for everyone, including non-Americans. Either market dynamics will handle that naturally, artificially (i.e., China's manufacturing subsidies), or else it is up to the local government to address the shortfall.

	▲	tialaramex 4 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Responding to your edit: A wider version of the same argument might apply. The US has (historically) benefited considerably from global stability and this does seem to help with that because if basically everybody has energy independence and the overheating doesn't get much worse they might chill the fuck out?
	▲	Brybry 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Isn't the American complaint that China did exactly that by subsidizing its solar industry and flooding the global market with panels cheaper than Americans could make? [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-20247734 (2012)
	▲	a_paddy 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		China is, it's subsidies have resulted in a glut of cheap solar panel production which the world has benefited from. European counties subsidise their own citizens switch to solar, the US no longer does at the federal level.
	▲	maxerickson an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Look at it this way: Benefiting everyone is a side effect of benefiting American taxpayers. Or do you think that US federal investment in solar and battery technology would be bad for the American taxpayer?