Subsidizing solar may help with climate change, but a better choice would be taxing carbon dioxide emissions in proportion to the actual damage that they do. If coal and gas were taxed according to their actual harm, the market price of electricity would increase to its fair price, and make solar viable without needing the government to organize it. However, due to battery costs and short battery lifespans, I suspect the free market would pick nuclear over solar.
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
39 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5852 readers
263 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
39
Column: Biden's Western solar plan sounds scary. But it's better than climate change
(www.latimes.com)
The reason you subsidize solar first is to create a viable path for people to get off fossil fuels. If they don't see that, the carbon tax looks like a problem instead of something they can live with.