On 2008-01-28 08:58:42 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:18:44 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

That's the cost argument.

That's a financial cost argument. However, money is not the only
cost, as the inhabitants of low lying areas are already discovering
in a very real way.

OK, so are you here making the connection that I think you are? i.e.

- Solar panels = "reduced carbon" energy
- Therefore reduction in carbon emission
- Therefore less climate change
- Therefore less flooding of low lying areas

This is shortening, simplifying and perhaps not in the order that you
might present it.

I'm not going to counter it with the teaspoon and Titanic argument either.


However, let's assume that the prospective purchaser believes that
buying a solar panel for his hot water affects the "cost" for the poor
sods living in low lying areas.

This is actually falling into the feel good category because the money
spent is being considered as affecting the well being of others,
present and future as opposed to benefiting the spender directly.
It could then be considered on the same basis as charitable giving to
flood relief to Bangladesh for example. Then one has to wonder
whether the £5000 spent on the solar panel system would have been put
to better use as a charitable donation, especially when grossed up with
the tax contribution.

Could it be that the solar panel represents an enormous and lasting
equivalent to the paper sticker I get when I put money in the
collecting tin in the high street?