The Defense Department will install solar panels on the Pentagon, part of the Biden administration’s plan to promote clean energy and “reestablish the federal government as a sustainability leader.”
The Pentagon is one of 31 government sites that are receiving $104 million in Energy Department grants that are expected to double the amount of carbon-free electricity at federal facilities and create 27 megawatts of clean-energy capacity while leveraging more than $361 million in private investment, the Energy Department said.
…
The solar panels are among several improvements set for the Pentagon, which also will install a heat pump system and solar thermal panels to reduce reliance on natural gas and fuel oil combustion systems
I mean, only if you don’t bother to think about it at all, for even a second.
The Pentagon facilitates a greater portion of global emissions than any other single building on the planet. Any where. From any time period.
Its pure symbolism. And its a weird symbol. Its like the peace sign on the helmet of the Vietnam era US soldier.
And also probably not a particularly great place for panels. Its not like we don’t still have the ability to transmit power over distances with renewables.
So you’re arguing want them to be as bad as possible with zero improvement? Why? What does that accomplish?
You didn’t read the article. Even if the Biden Administration (who is allocating the money) has some green ideas in mind, the Defense department officials aren’t concerned with that. The Defense department wants to ensure reliable access to electricity (such as in the event of a cyberattack) and wants to save money on energy.
So your idea about transmitting power over lines doesn’t accomplish Defense department’s goal.
See this, this mentality you are carrying around, its why the world has gone to shit.
Its the philosophy of incrementalism. Of support for the lesser of evils, when the lesser is still, well, evil. The mindset itself is the second half of a two part waltz that bad-faith actors use to achieve their goals. In the world, you rarely ever get the oppurtunity to do things twice. By going half as far or less than you needed to accomplish some goal, you’ve taken up the space that an action that could have been used to set the goal posts at beyond a distance that was enough to accomplish some goal. Its a premise that assume there will be some future time where you’ll be able to fix the mistakes of the past.
Its the same philosophy that touts Obamacare as some grand reform because “we did what was possible”. This kind of false pragmatism carries with it two fundamental issues when it comes to accomplishing policies. We had an oppurtunity to do “something” and we used that oppurtunity to do half of what was required. It took almost no time for that to be eroded into a situation that’s now effectively worse than where we started.
This is the true consequence of half measures. They take up the space where a full measure could have been made, and steal the impetus a full measure requires.
So I suppose you never, ever vote and never, ever participate in any sort of humanitarian aid, because there is not a single candidate or organization on this planet, and has never been any candidate or organization in all of history, that was perfect and sinless?
And only your vision for that full measure, yes? Irrespective of what others think? You’re preaching facism, and it has no place in the USA thank you very much.
Social security was a full measure. It covered all Americans. It did the entire job it set out to do.
It is an example of a full measure.
The postal service is a full measure. It doesn’t cover some of the addresses. It cover all of them.
The American public school system covers all students.
That is what I mean by a full measure and the equate that to facism is beyond idiotic.
Voted and supported by both houses in the legislature and signed by the President. Which healthcare law which you consider a “full measure” would pass the House and Senate today to be signed the President?
The postal service predates the United States (1775), so I don’t think that support your argument.
Not historically it didn’t, or are you not aware of Brown v. Board of Education? Even today is arguable it doesn’t because its largely controlled by municipalities with 50 different sets of standards at the State level with many massively underfunding their public school systems, or doing so disproportional.
Your examples are bad because only 1 of 3 is actually done at the federal level, and even that one doesn’t have any analogous proposed legislation for carbon emissions or universal health care that would pass the House and Senate. So unless you’re planning on embracing fascism to push a version through, you’re divorced from the reality of gaining consensus to pass law today.