Jump to content

Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions.

Lancaster California Becomes First City to Require Solar


 
3 replies to this topic

#1 E3 wise

E3 wise

    Shifted

  • Premium Shifter
  • 1,027 posts 286 rep

Posted 30 March 2013 - 04:10 PM

I am guessing there will be some people who will think that mandating solar for new construction is not fair.  My feeling is to draw a comparison to any other revolutionary technologies that have come into residential construction.  I mean at one time people had outhouses, once the technology became practical cities mandated indoor bathrooms.  The same thing happened with electricity standards and so on.  Read this article and tell us what you think.

http://www.greentech...o-Require-Solar

#2 Phil

Phil

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 944 posts 142 rep

Posted 01 April 2013 - 02:32 PM

Being a libertarian I don't have a problem with requiring people to be more self sufficient!  But oh the horrors, the guy is a, GASP, republican!  Will republicans get credit for this one or just more trash talk?

#3 Shortpoet-GTD

Shortpoet-GTD

    Shifted

  • Validating
  • 8,025 posts 758 rep

Posted 02 April 2013 - 04:01 AM

View PostPhil, on 01 April 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

Being a libertarian I don't have a problem with requiring people to be more self sufficient!  But oh the horrors, the guy is a, GASP, republican!  Will republicans get credit for this one or just more trash talk?
There are good republicans out there on the local levels across the country, although they are as scarce
as chicken teeth in Washington.

But back to topic-
Requiring developers to do this is a good thing.
They can spread the cost out over the whole development,
so it's not the burden on one individual homeowner.

On the down side-it's more urban sprawl because of overpopulation.

#4 E3 wise

E3 wise

    Shifted

  • Premium Shifter
  • 1,027 posts 286 rep

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:18 PM

You are so right, we find that the cost of renewables at construction is more cost effective then retrofit of existing buildings. On the subject of republicans and democrats, guys I find local leaders much more open to public feelings, I think it really is the money issue in politics.  I would be hard pressed to find a mayor or city commissioner getting hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars from fossil fuel companies for reelection, unlike many state or federal politicians.  I also think that local leaders are more in tune with the economic benefit that local generative power brings to their tax base.

As an independent I just don't care what party a person is if they are willing to do what's best for the people they represent, wish I could say that about state and federal leaders.
Jeff

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users