“meh
Rebates are an inefficient way to let middle men skim tax revenue but OK, I'm not going to argue that rebates work for those who can benefit from them. Energy tax rebates as implemented in the US only go to people with enough income to benefit from them. What about people who don't have the income but would like to have solar power too? What answer do we have for them?”
Our rebates were and are cash rebates, not tax rebates but your right, it only helps those that can afford to do it in the first place. What solution would work better? I’m open to anything that helps.
“Also, so what if solar water heating isn't practical everywhere? Geothermal isn't even close to a total solution either. Neither is wind or tidal power. Hydropower has such strong negative influence on the environment we are actually taking some dams down. The answer lies in intelligent systematic planning which the US government is clearly not doing. Because --- wait for it --- "Save the planet" followed by much snickering from ignoramuses. Right wing assholes (and I don't mean you) mock and cloud the effort to reduce carbon emissions with trite phrases such as that while trotting out fake science as if it should be taken seriously. Also, as I said earlier, purchasing-cost-paybackanalysis is short sighted and misses the realreason we need to get away from carbon fuels.”
Your right there is not just one thing that works and unless there are financial incentives to offer the public then its a hard sell. The carbon tax, while not perfect was and is a good start as well, it did provide money that was made available here to offer those incentives. Payback is always a talking point when thinking about purchasing more efficient equipment. I gotta ask, what are you doing or have done personally to use less energy in your home? If you were offered .5 the cost of a new more efficient furnace would that not be something to consider? It’s a complexed problem that I doubt will be solved and frankly I hold little hope that the damage done can be reversed.