[NewsCoulomb]

My solar was subsidized by the federal government, state taxpayers, and utility customers. 3 subsidies paying 2/3 of the cost barely made it worthwhile to me (probably break-even). Everyone else I mooched from will never get a return on their non-voluntary "investment".

When am I going to get a return on my non-voluntary "investment" in the fossil fuels industry and military industrial complex?

 

[MisterJJ]

When am I going to get a return on my non-voluntary "investment" in the fossil fuels industry and military industrial complex?

You already have. Lower energy costs. Economic strength from less dependence on foreign energy. And a your peace and freedom. 🦅

 

[redpoint5]

I'm not seeing it. From everything I've seen, the Australian solar rebate program has been a great success. The issue appears to be with inspections and permitting, which is a very different problem.

A great success indeed! Not quite the success Germany has enjoyed, but progress is headed up according to these charts.

 

[NewsCoulomb]

A great success indeed!

View attachment 32675

Correlation or causation?

Rising coal and gas costs push Australia electricity prices to record highs

Big generators bidding over summer shatter myth of cheap “base-load”, as rising coal and gas costs send prices to record highs, and rooftop solar reduces demand.

reneweconomy.com.au

 

[NewsCoulomb]

You already have. Lower energy costs. Economic strength from less dependence on foreign energy. And a your peace and freedom. 🦅

🤣 🤣 🤣

 

[redpoint5]

🤣 🤣 🤣

Living past 30 and not having half of all birthed children die (in the 1800s) is another benefit directly attributable to leveraging fossil fuels. Everything was way better back when everything was way worse!

 

[NewsCoulomb]

Living past 30 and not having half of all birthed children die is another benefit directly attributable to leveraging fossil fuels. Everything was way better back when everything was way worse!

The question isn't whether things are better now than they were 30 years ago. The question is, are things as good today as the could have been?

Maternal Mortality and Maternity Care in the United States Compared to 10 Other Developed Countries

Overview of differences in maternal mortality, maternal care workforce, and access to postpartum care and social protections in the U.S. and 10 other countries.

www.commonwealthfund.org

 

[redpoint5]

The question isn't whether things are better now than they were 30 years ago. The question is, are things as good today as the could have been?

In one sense, things could always have been better. If we had the technology 100 years from now, today, we'd be better off.

In the other sense, history has unfolded the only way it could have. If things could have been any different, they would have been.

 

[MisterJJ]

The question isn't whether things are better now than they were 30 years ago.

Absolutely, in a wide variety of measurable ways.

The question is, are things as good today as the could have been?

Silly question with no answer unless you are omnipotent.

Maternal Mortality and Maternity Care in the United States Compared to 10 Other Developed Countries

Overview of differences in maternal mortality, maternal care workforce, and access to postpartum care and social protections in the U.S. and 10 other countries.

www.commonwealthfund.org

Good example of how we are a victim of our success. Even the least of us in the U.S. have such wealth that it becomes easy to make poor life choices (drugs, alcohol, unhealthy foods and habits).

 

[NewsCoulomb]

In one sense, things could always have been better. If we had the technology 100 years from now, today, we'd be better off.

In the other sense, history has unfolded the only way it could have. If things could have been any different, they would have been.

That's why I shared a comparison with other developed nations that decided to take a different path than the United States. The fact that we continue to refuse to follow the path they set is something worth considering.

 

[NortonCommando]

NewsCoulumb, If the government could just create a jobs program to make a strong economy, it would do so. That's just not how this economy thing works.

There was a time when government created a jobs program and it saved lives and created a lot of shared enduring results.
Creating a clean energy future might not be as desperately needed immediately, but it would create lots of worthwhile infrastructure and enduring jobs.
Then again,, times are tough for a lot of Americans.

People are taught to freak at that nasty word 'Socialism'. Only, look around. We are surrounded by it.
For instance, where does your clean drinking water come from? A for-profit corporation with shareholders getting rich?
At some point the 'Greater Good' should be considered.

 

[NortonCommando]

Good example of how we are a victim of our success. Even the least of us in the U.S. have such wealth that it becomes easy to make poor life choices (drugs, alcohol, unhealthy foods and habits).

I think this an example of our Healthcare system.
We spend the most, but what are the results when you compare us to other industrialized nations and their Healthcare systems?
There may be something to National Healthcare and/or Single Payer systems.
Is the for profit health insurance system we have doing us any good, other than for those that profit off the 20-30% of spending that stays with those paper shufflers?

 

[MisterJJ]

People are taught to freak at that nasty word 'Socialism'.

Yes, we have a lot of "socialism" programs already. Some better than others. A better discussion is "how much socialism do we want?". But politicians and the media don't gain from such a discussion so we get what we get.

 

[redpoint5]

I've mentioned this before, but social welfare programs are not the same as Socialism. Socialism is early-stage Communism.

Socialism- "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Socialism isn't a nasty word, it's a failed ideology, and has nothing to do with social welfare programs.

 

[MisterJJ]

I've mentioned this before, but social welfare programs are not the same as Socialism. Socialism is early-stage Communism.

Okay. Is "Socialist policies" better for you?

The path to socialism leads through increasing the socialist policies to a point where there is no difference between them and socialism. So you scream "Socialism is bad!", while the politicians simply pass socialist policies in the name of fairness, social justice, climate justice, whatever. If you start talking about how much socialist policies we should have, it becomes a real discussion that we should be talking about.

The best example of near-socialism through socialist policies is Greece. More favorable examples, to varying degrees are Spain or China (communist in politics, socialist in policy).

 

[NortonCommando]

....Socialism- "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

This is only one definition. There are many other.

You're good at this. Create a chart of countries based on:
Standard of Living.
Standard of Happiness.

I'm pretty sure you will see at the top of that list those dang countries that are called Social Democracies.
One of those countries has the saying: "In xxx few have too much. Fewer still have too little"

And my note: They all have good health care, FOR ALL.

 

[MisterJJ]

You're good at this. Create a chart of countries based on:
Standard of Living.
Standard of Happiness.

I'm pretty sure you will see at the top of that list those dang countries that are called Social Democracies.
One of those countries has the saying: "In xxx few have too much. Fewer still have too little"

I've done this. It's kind of a mixed bag. There's so many factors it's hard to find clear correlations. Some countries are relatively small and have a lot of natural resources that they exploit to pay for social programs. Others seem to manage without that advantage. That's why I'm saying we should have a discussion of where we want to be on the scale and not just declaring one extreme as bad and the other as good.

Similarly try looking at gun control laws between different countries. You'll find:
High gun control, low gun deaths.
Low gun control, low gun deaths
High gun control, high gun deaths
Low gun control, high gun deaths.

There seems to be very little rhyme or reason to it. Human behavior is complex.

And my note: They all have good health care, FOR ALL.

Uh.. that's not entirely true. You can cherry pick data to show what you want, but actual "good" healthcare that is received in a timely fashion is not always the case.

 

[Fivedoor]

Everyone else I mooched from will never get a return on their non-voluntary "investment".

The reasoning (correct, or not correct) is that society as a whole benefits from the reduced CO2 production that was offset by your solar panels, so none of that pile of cash was burned... it was invested in reducing carbon emissions.

Keith

 

[redpoint5]

The reasoning (correct, or not correct) is that society as a whole benefits from the reduced CO2 production that was offset by your solar panels, so none of that pile of cash was burned... it was invested in reducing carbon emissions.

Oh, I get the flawed reasoning. People are more concerned with feeling like they've done good without caring if good was actually done, or performing any sort of cost/benefit analysis. Better to have a facade of virtue than to be virtuous, because it's way easier, and keeps the angry (and hypocritical) mob away for another day.

Oregon's valley (Pacific Northwest) is already among the cleanest grids with the majority of electricity coming from hydro power. It's also among the least efficient places to install solar panels due to half of the days being rainy/overcast, and being at the 45th parallel (indirect sunlight).

If we really cared about CO2 reduction, we would contract with AZ to install our panels down there, then they would reimburse for the generated electricity. We would offset more CO2 per invested dollar.

 

[MisterJJ]

If we really cared about CO2 reduction, we would contract with AZ to install our panels down there, then they would reimburse for the generated electricity. We would offset more CO2 per invested dollar.

Interesting point.
If CO2 was your primary concern and motivation, it would make perfect sense for the governments in northern states to pay Arizona or other sunshine states to install solar panels there instead of subsidizing inefficient panels in the north. Unless CO2 reduction wasn't really your motivation.