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

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is like putting solar panels on an oil rig

    I mean, even for a low effort post its not really making much sense.

    I assume your simile is suggesting that and oil rig shouldn’t use solar panels (for reduction of green house gas creation) because it is a primary source of green house gasses (eventually). So you’d prefer an oil rig to, what, burn oil for electricity instead generating even more green house gasses?

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      10 months ago

      I mean, even for a low effort post its not really making much sense.

      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.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        The Pentagon facilitates a greater portion of global emissions than any other single building on the planet. Any where. From any time period.

        So you’re arguing want them to be as bad as possible with zero improvement? Why? What does that accomplish?

        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.

        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.

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          27
          ·
          10 months ago

          So you’re arguing want them to be as bad as possible with zero improvement? Why? What does that accomplish?

          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.

          • wanderingmagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            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?

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

            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.

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

              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.

              • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

                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 is a full measure. It doesn’t cover some of the addresses. It cover all of them.

                The postal service predates the United States (1775), so I don’t think that support your argument.

                The American public school system covers all students.

                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.

                That is what I mean by a full measure and the equate that to facism is beyond idiotic.

                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.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      37
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I’d prefer the oil rig didn’t exist and I’d prefer people stop confusing greenwashing for progress.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Sure, great, but thats ignoring the practicalities of reality. If you want real change you’ve got to evolve from an ideologue if you’re actually interested in seeing the change you want.

        Oil rigs aren’t going to disappear overnight. If they did economies around the world would come to a grinding halt. Famine and disease would run rampant and wars would break out fighting over the remaining supplies. Likely 80% or more of humanity would die out within a generation. You and I would not be among the survivors.

        So maybe a better way to get rid of oil rigs is to reduce their need by, oh I don’t know, replacing oil consuming energy generation with PV solar panels…like the article is talking about. It will be on very small change in a whole list of changes needed to get rid of those oil rigs, but is on the path, and its realistic.

        people stop confusing greenwashing for progress.

        There’s plenty of greenwashing occurring in the world today. This event isn’t one of them.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          There will never be real change as long as people settle for greenwashing, there will be ticky-tacky incremental bullshit changes until society collapses. With incrementalism oil rigs aren’t going to disappear ever, and neither will the Pentagon. They’re going to kill us all.