[dagss]

I don't think rooftop solar is that simple:

1) Does the extra cost of rooftop solar go to installers doing a lot more manual work per panel?

Installers who need a source of income to live anyway?..

2) As I see it a lot of the pollution in the world is due to fear of people loosing their jobs. One could scale down many sectors, or more aggressively shift to a greener economy, if it wasn't for the fear of people/voters loosing their jobs.

-- So when considering options I think one needs to give smaller weight to salaries ("somone had to feed that person anyway") and more weight to natural resource extraction needed...which is the "real" cost. Basically count further CO2 emissions invested, not work hours.

[opo]

>I don't think rooftop solar is that simple:

Money is fungible and not unlimited - a dollar that goes to subsidize residential rooftop solar is a dollar that would go much, much further if it was used to subsidize utility grade solar or wind.

The original poster pointed out:

>...We would rather die and kill most of the biological world than face economic austerity, so we get what we order.

As I pointed out, it is worse than that - we often waste the small amounts of money we are willing to spend. If people know that rooftop solar is an inefficient use of people's money, but justify it because it can be a jobs program for roofers - that won't help convince tax payers that policy makers are committed to fighting climate change.

[_w1tm]

> Money is fungible and not unlimited

There is no limit to the numbers in central bank databases. Resources and labor are not unlimited, though.

[mahkeiro]

Yes but installing solar rooftop is simple and won't use any additional land and get opposed by environmental groups. From that point of view, your $ will be more actionable than waiting 15 years to get your utility solar deployed.