We have just had solar panels fitted!!!

[2stressed]

Amazing!!! Can't believe the reduction in fuel bills. I'm seriously dumbfounded why everyone isn't doing it. We paid fir ours are selves so get the benefit of the feed in tariff but even if we'd got some of the rent a roof schemes the saving in fuel bills would be incentive enough!!!

Happy happy happy!!!

It is not an ethical debate, the government needs more renewable energy, people who have the resources to generate that energy need an economic reason to do so.
High energy users (ie those who have larger houses to heat/ more appliances on the go) pay more towards FIT than low users, as it is a percentage of the bill.
Sounds fair enough to me.
If you want to pay less, use less.

inmysparetime It is not an ethical debate

Not to you, maybe. You must have missed my question "I wonder if this belongs in "Ethical living" "

take a look at the top of the page and see which forum we're in.

The ethical aspect concerns the generation of renewable energy, not (as you are determined to debate) the means of funding this generation. Feed in Tariffs are a fiscal, not ethical, issue.
I am aware of the topics I post in, and of the reasons I post there.

I don't share your opinion that paying a subsidy to those lucky enough to have solar panels, when the subsidy comes out of the pockets of those who are not so lucky, in an ethics-free issue.

I see you are determined not to address this issue.

I believe I have addressed that issue.
I have explained the reasons behind the subsidy, why it is fair that those who use most energy pay most towards it, and how it encourages people to choose micro-generation. What else would you like explaining?

You didn't address the issue. You claimed that it was not an ethical debate. You also tried a bit of mud-slinging in pretending that I was attacking people who benefit from the subsidy, and suggesting that I was not lobbying for a change in policy.

However I think I have grasped your position. You see no ethical problem with those people who are lucky enough to have houses with solar panels receiving a subsidy which those who are not so lucky are forced to pay.

What would you like to happen?
At least with FITs the price of energy is predictable over the long term. Micro generation is far less contentious than wind farms or solar farms, and there are fewer issues regarding transporting energy.
It is energy companies that technically pay for FITs, and they will keep their prices keen due to competition.
As far as I can tell, you would either like people to choose micro generation as a loss-making venture (which is not going to happen) or you would like some mythical bad guy to step in and pay for it all (also not going to happen).
Please explain what you are (or are not, you haven't actually said either way) lobbying for.

You may recall that I originally asked a question.

As it happens, I think it is wrong for people who are lucky enough to have houses with solar panels to receive a subsidy, which those who are not so lucky are forced to pay.

Obviously you don't think it is wrong.

If domestic solar panels are not economically viable without somebody having to pay to subsidise it, and as if I don't approve of the unlucky people paying a subsidy to the lucky ones, I am not in favour of this subsidy.

And to answer my own question, which was

"I wonder if this belongs in "Ethical living" when the subsidy is paid for by an extra amount paid by all the other consumers who haven't got/can't afford solar panels?"

My answer is:
It belongs in ethical living provided that the ethical issue is acknowledged and discussed. Otherwise it is not being treated as an Ethical topic, but as a How To Make Money Out Of Other People topic.

The government has targets to meet for renewable energy generation. If not for the subsidy, how do you suggest they meet those targets.
I do acknowledge the shortcomings of any subsidy system, but feel it is the best solution available at present to meet international obligations for renewable energy.
I would like to see solar panels fitted to social housing, as this would bring the price of panels within the range of more people, and give low income families a stake in renewable energy generation.
I also know that The economic situation of the country means this will not be feasible for some years yet.
Solar power is not the only means of micro generation, those with unsuitable roofs can choose micro wind turbines, and those with less to spend can invest in solar thermal systems.

I have not taken upon myself the task of devising government policy.

I confine myself to pointing out an ethical problem when people who are lucky enough to have houses with solar panels receive a subsidy, which those who are not so lucky are forced to pay.

You keep saying it is unfair, but what would be fair in your eyes, given the need for renewable energy?

I refer you to my previous answer.

Also, you keep saying people with solar panels are "lucky". Luck has a part to play, but people with solar panels have made a choice to use their resources to help generate the energy they and others use.
Plenty of people with similar resources have not made that choice, and hence do not benefit from the subsidy.
Do you suggest that all who have suitable roofs are compelled to use their "lucky" situation to generate energy at a loss so we can all benefit from renewable energy fairly.

You seem to be trying to tease me into making a suggestion that you can disagree with.

This is the Ethical Living forum, and I have pointed out an ethical issue.

If you tell me that it is your policy that a small number of people should be paid a subsidy, so that they can make a profit out of doing something which is not economically viable, and that this subsidy should be paid by the many people who are not in a position to benefit, then I will say that your policy is unethical.

A substantial proportion of the people who pay towards the subsidy are in a position to benefit, they have not chosen to take advantage of that situation. Many people could install renewable energy technologies and save money on their energy bills, but they choose not to.
The government has few tools at its disposal to encourage ethical choices in the general public, subsidy is one of the most effective, and this subsidy is more direct than most, being made through the very businesses that buy the energy created.

You mean that in your opinion, a small number of people should be paid a subsidy, so that they can make a profit out of doing something which is not economically viable, and that this subsidy should be paid by the many people who are not in a position to benefit?

That's unethical.

I'm saying that if there is no subsidy, people will not choose micro generation and the government will get fined for missing targets on renewable energy (which we will have to pay through taxes).
We would also be generating less renewable energy, thus creating more greenhouse gases and depleting limited fossil fuel resources.
Now that's an ethical issue.

Also, subsidies are used for all sorts of things, such as certain crops or farming practices, and all of them are paid to a few people by many.

"more greenhouse gases and depleting limited fossil fuel resources.
Now that's an ethical issue."

No, that's an environmental issue.

"subsidies are used for all sorts of things"

And some of them may be unethical.

That doesn't make your preferred subsidies any less unethical.

It's an ethical issue if a simple subsidy system would enable the government to meet targets, avoid fines, and conserve resources.

No, that's a Pragmatic, not an Ethical issue.

Would you like to be able to opt out of the FIT system, so you could rest easy knowing your energy is purely from fossil fuels.
Of course, your bills would fluctuate wildly as the price of oil dictates, and would rise dramatically as world oil resources run out.
But at least you wouldn't be contributing to something as ethically unsound as renewable energy.

"But at least you wouldn't be contributing to something as ethically unsound as renewable energy"

You are either misunderstanding, or deliberately misrepresenting, my position.

I say that it is unethical that a small number of people should be paid a subsidy, so that they can make a profit out of doing something which is not economically viable, and that this subsidy should be paid by the many people who are not in a position to benefit.

You are pretending (I suspect deliberately) that I have said I am opposed to renewable energy.

You should be ashamed of yourself.