this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2026
104 points (99.1% liked)
Climate
7878 readers
384 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Now if only I could afford a home to put a solar panel on.
In Sweden, people – wealthy home owners – have gotten a lot of public financial assistance for mounting solar panels that would either way have paid for themselves in a matter of years, lowering electrical bills and raising house prices for the owners.
Overall that is a good thing, the pros of increased solar adoption outweigh the glaring inequity, but all the same it's hard to feel that it's a part of the general fuckery of governments competing on who can pamper the upper middle class the most. Sweden also subsidizes mortgage interest and has essentially abolished (hard-capped at a low.level) the property tax on private homes. And Sweden has in recent years given financial relief to households based on their electrical consumption, I.e. very little (or nothing if electric is added to the rent) to renters and most of the money going to people with big houses and year-round heated pools.
The discussion on equity needs to enter the debate on things like incentives for solar panels on private homes or grants for energy saving insulation. These are good things, but the money can't just stack up on top of other political favors to the wealthy. Less useful subsidies need to go. They need to replace other benefits.
I guess a big difference is in Australia we have a lot of land and a lot of sun. That money could be used to fund public solar farms and providing electricity for all, yet it and so many other social benefits go directly to the house owners.
I don't know how it works in Australia, but a plus to subsidizing solar installation on roofs is that the home owner still has to co-invest for a considerable part, so you kinda get a leveraged build out, as opposed to the government directly building installations. But the balance between private and public good should be weighed carefully all the same.
No, no. You START with the solar panel and work your way up.
I'm not into rocket appliances, but I would work down from the solar panels.