We need both. There's plenty of wealthy people that can afford to go solar and could arguably have a bigger environmental impact if they did since they often also have large homes, big cars etc. If they don't feel strongly about doing it for altruistic reasons then subsidies are a useful tool to get them to take the plunge. Without subsidies there's really no economic argument for them to do it since the break even times are long and they probably aren't too worried about utility costs.
Taking one single family home solar does not provide a measurable environmental impact in aggregate.
OP doesn't have to pay the electric bill anymore, but the average residential solar install exceeds $30k before credits. Someone has to pay off that loan...
Not to mention the Chinese factory that manufactured the solar panels is probably dumping toxic waste chemicals into the local drinking water unabated. We're all too busy patting ourselves on the back for saving the world to consider the impact of the whole lifecycle.
> Taking one single family home solar does not provide a measurable environmental impact in aggregate.
In order for large numbers of homes to go solar, individual homes need to go solar. Are you saying we just shouldn't bother with solar and EVs because not everyone is going to do it? May aswell just stop donating to charity too right?
> Someone has to pay off that loan...
I think the OP is probably paying for the loan themselves. The subsidies are just a small part of the total cost.
> probably dumping toxic waste chemicals...
Again, I think everyone would agree that it'd be better if the solar panel production process was totally clean, but the fact it isn't yet doesn't stop solar being a net win.
>In order for large numbers of homes to go solar, individual homes need to go solar.
Assuming that SFH remain the standard. Even with ADUs, that changes. (Idea: subsidize only based on the presence of multifamily on a lot?)
>I think the OP is probably paying for the loan themselves.
Hm. Knock-on effect. That homeowner now has to command the income to pay for the loan. That changes his job choice, consumption habits. Maybe his boss feels that he has to pay him more to keep him happy (and not another worker). If he has to sell, price has to be higher in order to break even/get a return. Solar is probably a good thing for municipal expenses, re: less strain on the power grid, but you also get a better turn in that regard converting multi-family or non-residential buildings.
CA is doing both but PG&E (and SDGE and SCE, etc) are screwing everyone over as they wasted decades without maintaining their lines properly and now charge through the roof on power distribution which they have a monopoly on.
> In order for large numbers of homes to go solar, individual homes need to go solar.
The percentage of energy going to my house which was generated by solar continues to go up every year. And yet I haven't installed a single solar panel. Strange huh?
Wealthy people pay much more in taxes than poor people. One use of taxes I am in favor of is "nudges" to achieve desirable outcomes for all. This is an example of that.
True, but not universally. In cities, lower income people living in older buildings are a significantly larger source of tax revenue than corporate parks or the wealthy communities they subsidize. I spend less in sales tax shopping at Costco than someone who eats every meal from a corner store and overpays for singles of everything.
I don't even know what a soda or single roll of toilet tissue costs, but I'd probably be horrified by it because I can afford not to spend money.
The government gets my money on occasion, but they have a chunk of the nation on a subscription plan.
