>> it's not the media's fault that billion dollar titans of industry lie to the media for profit, especially because the media lacks the necessary access to verify the claims, so all they can do is report the claim as stated (which is what they did)
I fail to see the relevance of assigning blame here. If you grant what he suggests then you can apportion blame in a variety of plausible ways.
>>... or are you suggesting they just never report on industry claims?
I'm not sure there is any reasonable solution here. Industry claims, especially projections, can be quite dubious at times. It's difficult to explain why when you are trying to appeal to a wide audience, however. The media just isn't in a good position to verify or discredit claims like that.
>> Where is the strawman? What you've stated here is literally my argument, that is, it's not the media's fault that billion dollar titans of industry lie to the media for profit, especially because the media lacks the necessary access to verify the claims, so all they can do is report the claim as stated (which is what they did)... or are you suggesting they just never report on industry claims?
You just said his argument was "don't trust this story or the media in general." His claim was that in certain circumstances the surface implication of the media's reporting of PR numbers is very misleading. That's it. It's quite a simple statement that in no way implies what you have repeatedly suggested he claims.
>> He actually did make that claim farther down this thread, however, I never accused him of suggesting that, all I said was that he is suggesting we "don't trust this story or the media in general".
I'll take your word for it; he must have deleted it or it is hidden although I can't find it on the thread. I would be surprised if he did that because it is quite a ridiculous statement that would expose him to ridicule and is logically unnecessary for his argument.
Individual entitlements are a majority of federal spending. In comparison, government incentives for coal are almost non-existent. You seem to be off by at least 10,000%.
>>$10-20k is very little a 30 year mortgage. If you're buying an expensive house than that then you can definitely afford the baseline cost of solar panels. If you live in an area with high housing prices and can't afford to buy then you're renting, and the costs of solar installed on multifamily is shared across all tenants. The cost of solar panel production and installation will drop as processes become more efficient, and solar panel production costs are (were?) being halved every year or two so the $10-20k price tag will continue dropping despite tariffs.
That statement doesn't make sense. You have to compare the net present value of an upfront investment with the electricity savings over time. If you amortize that amount over 30 years it doesn't change the fact you made the upfront payment, you just pay the bank extra money (interest) for the privilege of differing payment.
>>Private solar energy will also reduce costs of maintaining a grid, reduce odds of widespread power failure, and reduce costs of environmental externalities of other forms of energy production. California is also pushing hard for electric vehicles. Solar powered electric vehicles reduce reliance on oil production and imports. I don't live in CA but it seems to me they're playing the long game by reducing government ownership/operation of energy systems while reducing the costs of energy for all Californians to a low equilibrium state that reflects the cost of solar panels, which will drop over time. I wish Texas were more interested in these kinds of programs rather than bathroom legislation.
None of that supports the claim that it is a worthwhile investment to install solar panels on homes. It doesn't follow logically at all. Externalities are the exact reason regulations exist. If you want to argue that the cost is worthwhile for society do it, but none of that has anything to do with the price to a homeowner of installing solar panels.
>> No, solar on single family homes makes them less expensive.
Then why in the world would they have to regulate it?
>> the body that enacted that would not have been allowed to enact the regulation
That 100% wrong legally. No one ever has been able to avoid regulation by claiming that the regulation imposes a net cost. That's the entire point of a regulation, to shift behavior in the absence of direct economic incentives.
In reality, this regulation is a tradeoff between higher net costs for new home builders and the need to reduce carbon emissions.
>> In the article, they cite enough statements made by specific people at specific organizations to support the headline - it's not peer-reviewed academic research, sure, but it's not like they are just making stuff up either.
The 'support' is that the PR department of the company said it. You think corporations always give you unbiased information? They are strongly incentivized, as the comment pointed out, to claim that contracts may be canceled due to reason X when the reality is far more complex. The cost for claiming this is so incredibly low that there is no reason not to do it.
You are creating a ridiculous straw man. He didn't claim the media is a bunch of liars. The media can't dig into the details and verify every detail of every press release. If a company claims contracts are frozen or canceled there is no way for the media to check whether the projects would happen at all.
The "personal anecdotes" are a series of observations about contracts that are publicly reported combined with an understanding of how companies are incentivized to report contracts. If you don't believe him or find him very credible you don't need to take his word for it, he's just some random guy on the internet whose credibility can't be independently established.
On the other hand, you can undercut his argument by providing evidence that companies always report contracts in an evenhanded way. Of course, they don't thats just PR 101.
I fail to see the relevance of assigning blame here. If you grant what he suggests then you can apportion blame in a variety of plausible ways.
>>... or are you suggesting they just never report on industry claims?
I'm not sure there is any reasonable solution here. Industry claims, especially projections, can be quite dubious at times. It's difficult to explain why when you are trying to appeal to a wide audience, however. The media just isn't in a good position to verify or discredit claims like that.
>> Where is the strawman? What you've stated here is literally my argument, that is, it's not the media's fault that billion dollar titans of industry lie to the media for profit, especially because the media lacks the necessary access to verify the claims, so all they can do is report the claim as stated (which is what they did)... or are you suggesting they just never report on industry claims?
You just said his argument was "don't trust this story or the media in general." His claim was that in certain circumstances the surface implication of the media's reporting of PR numbers is very misleading. That's it. It's quite a simple statement that in no way implies what you have repeatedly suggested he claims.
>> He actually did make that claim farther down this thread, however, I never accused him of suggesting that, all I said was that he is suggesting we "don't trust this story or the media in general".
I'll take your word for it; he must have deleted it or it is hidden although I can't find it on the thread. I would be surprised if he did that because it is quite a ridiculous statement that would expose him to ridicule and is logically unnecessary for his argument.