2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Interestingly, this is the first "go to" for a lot of people considering the decision to install solar. I don't believe "rich man's toy" is a fair representation of the current cost of entry into solar renewables. As demonstrated in other threads on this subject. There indeed exists an element of social responsibility when it comes to adopting new methods of harnessing renewables.

I agree that it would be nice if these systems were ultra-cost effective and left no residual costs for the adopter to bear - I am certain that day will come. However, the social responsiblitity falls on those with the means - and there are plenty to get this industry up and running. Another point to ponder, for those with the means as applied to "home improvements", how often does the ROI or estimated payback calculation occur when considering improvements such as granite vs. laminate, hardwood vs. linoleum, etc. This argument carries into all aspects of our consumer lives - driving vs. public transportation, eating out vs. packing food, buying food vs. growing food - the point is we ALL make choices that reflect our values as applied to the comforts and conveniences we select in our culture.

Given the social issues surrounding our dependence on fossil fuels - is this really a justifed argument. I personally would have a difficult time demonstrating my angst over the current cost of renewables if I had a Starbuck's in one hand and a cell phone in the other. Social responsibility is the right response as we all will reep the benefits of our collective actions. Changing our current methods of energy delivery and use will not occur on its own - it will take each one of us acting individually. Both the state and feds have responded as well as manufacturers such as SolarWorld and PV Powered.

A better exercise for each of us to do before calulating a payback period on renewables would be to add how much of our income is directed towards consumable items (Starbucks, McDonalds, Pepsi, Budweiser, Plasma TV's, Tivo, Nike shoes, Ipods, Iphones, etc., etc., etc.) over the same 30-year period. I think social responsibility is not nearly as expensive as its reputation. It just might make each of us alter our spending habits over time - yes, I know that hurts.

Maybe this is a job for Wyden & Kennedy to help craft the message that this is the socially trendy thing to do and ...

Just Do It.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context