> What kind of selfish point of view is this? Don't you want people to use energy sources that are better for our entire world, even if it costs you like $10 more in taxes per year?

Only if those who make the same or more than me are paying that same tax. After their subsidies of course.

Rich folks getting even richer off the backs of poor folks is bad. Even if it's dressed up as good for the environment or whatever justification you want to come up with.

As a homeowner, I would not take these subsidies as I find them to be immoral. Doesn't mean I won't be installing solar, but I'm doing it for far different reasons than saving money.

By your logic, shouldn't homeowners stop being selfish and just pay for these things themselves in order to make the world a better place? Why do they need renters, other taxpayers, and other ratepayers to subsidize them?

>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. But I also feel the same about elder care, health care and a bunch of other things, do you feel the same for those things too, or this is specifically about solar or owning vs renting?

There's an alternative, and almost certainly cheaper per watt with cost of scale, where your tax dollars go to a new solar farm instead, something everyone could take advantage of.

>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.

As a renter, I'm moderately more in favor of utility-scale solar subsidies rather than subsidizing private solar. It seems like another way to make the arrangement more "fair" is to subsidize private solar, but credit the grid up to the original grant's amount. In other words, in the GP's case, they would only get $1000/year in free money for 15 years instead of 20.

(This is very low on my list of things that I care about, to be clear.)

Maybe I'd prefer to spend the same public money on building nuclear power plants, or gigantic solar panel arrays in the desert, rather than subsidizing individual roof-owners being able to save money on their electricity bill and not mine.

Also, more people having solar have the indirect effect to bringing energy prices down for everyone.

>Don't you want people to use energy sources that are better for our entire world, even if it costs you like $10 more in taxes per year?

If everyone gets the benefit it's either A) exactly the same cost but with additional government program or B) some form of wealth distribution and not necessarily in a direction you favor

Also large solar installations are significantly more cost efficient.

Mind you I am IN FAVOR of subsidized residential solar, but let's not pretend government money is free.

There is nothing more unjust than forcing someone to buy something they do not want simply because you think it would be good for them.

> Seems like a no brainer deal

This is opinion, not fact. I happen to share your opinion, but enshrining opinions in law is almost always going to violate someone’s consent.