[caminante]

I agree it's important to watch for these things.

For externalities or immediate health benefits, heatpumps are pretty defensible. However, solar isn't a saint. Rare earth/mineral mining is hazardous plus only a fraction of solar panels are getting recycled properly.

> this is doable in harsh Canadian winters with negligible solar and it breaks even

It's doable alright. OP got subsidies (See comment re: risk free loan and grants). Talk about externalities, this is definitely wealth transfer.

[thelastgallon]

Yes, lets talk about subsidies. Fossil fuels have had and continue to have the most subsidies. Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion/year: https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel...

The wealth transfer you are alluding to, it is from the poor (everyone) to the rich (fossil fuel billionaires), isn't it?

[caminante]

Please avoid unwarranted "whataboutism."

[vanviegen]

This is not whataboutism though. It's comparing two alternatives on a relevant aspect.

[caminante]

LOL.

Can you please share your definition of "whataboutism?" And explain how bringing up a single alternative (plus flaw) is addressing the critique and NOT changing the subject?

[TeMPOraL]

"Whataboutism", like "dog whistle", is a name for an imaginary discussion pattern that doesn't occur in real life, but is super easy to point out in most conversations, allowing one to cry foul and "win" the argument (or whole discussion) through violence instead of reason.

This is pretty much the same as accusing a colleague of insulting you through PR they asked you to review, because there's an added line that says:

  class HOLEInstance ...

i.e. obviously they're calling you "assHOLE".

- "But wait, it's no such thing; it's a Handle for OLE component instances - it's part of support for COM stuff in those legacy reports..."

- "AHA! See also here, dear readers:"

   class HOLEClientSite // TODO: : public HOEComponent?

"Surely, you see how bad my coworker is! They badmouth our customers too, and even call them public harlots! Don't believe their lousy defense that this was a typo, either!"

This is what pointing out "whataboutism" and "dog whistles" is. Artificial, cross-cutting pattern that match easily, but don't correspond to any real phenomena.

Weaponized pareidolia.

[caminante]

? [0]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[thelastgallon]

You brought up subsidies. I updated your understanding of subsidies. What is this whataboutism you are talking about?

[caminante]

> I updated your understanding of subsidies.

Adults don't talk like this. The parent shared they would be far less likely to have moved forward without the subsidies. Now, you implied that someone (me) pointing out a tradeoff of solar subsidies must be non-critical of O&G subsidies, yet you provided no proof that I wasn't ALSO critical of O&G subsidies.

Meanwhile, I would love to learn more about the financials of your non-profit, ChargeFoundation.org that has mailing to a residence in Austin, TX. I'm not seeing any 990s.[0] Can you please post your foundation's financial reports on your site?

[0] https://app.candid.org/profile/15315388/charge-foundation-93...

[zbentley]

I hope we can agree that fossil fuel consumption is something to be avoided. Subsidies are an effective means of incentivizing people to avoid fossil fuels.

If you believe the externalities of solar are a problem, what do you propose to do instead? Should we subsidize some other alternative? Redirect resources from oil to nuclear? Other?

[caminante]

>avoided [entirely?]

You're making different/absolutist arguments. Even the most ardent electrification proponents agree that you can't replace downstream chemicals/materials.

As for subsidies, you're thinking too narrow if you feel it necessary to only spend limited government budget on energy to improve lives.

[zbentley]

At no point did I make an absolutist claim. If I meant “fossil fuel use should be eliminated”, I would have used those words. Do you agree that it should be avoided and/or curtailed? If not, there is little point in continuing to discuss here, as we will likely never see eye-to-eye on this.

> you're thinking too narrow if you feel it necessary to only spend limited government budget on energy to improve lives.

I also did not use the word “only”. Governments are quite capable of doing more than one thing at once. Should governments not consider spending money on energy to improve lives?

[thelastgallon]

> As for subsidies, you're thinking too narrow if you feel it necessary to only spend limited government budget on energy to improve lives.

But, its perfectly okay for govt to spend on fossil fuel subsidies? You draw the line when the subsidies are for solar, heatpumps, etc?

[thelastgallon]

> However, solar isn't a saint. Rare earth/mineral mining is hazardous

Solar cells are made of silicon, not rare earths.

For solar, you need to mine ONCE for 25 - 50 years. Fossil fuels are burnt every second continuously. Perhaps you can do the math if its not obvious?