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
Hopefully this time they’ll stay there.
I was coming here to say- they’ll install them just in time for Trump to take them off again.
I was pleasantly surprised that Trump didn’t remove the W Bush era or Obama era installed solar panels at the White House. My only explanation as to why he didn’t was because he didn’t know they were there.
Trump probably didn’t even know they were there.
I remember when Obama removed the W era solar panels, all the republicunts went bananas, screeching, “wHaT ABout tEh ENvirONMenT?!!1??” because they were too stupid to understand that Obama was upgrading them.
In 2003, the George W. Bush administration reinstalled solar thermal heaters. These units are used to heat water for landscape maintenance personnel and for the presidential pool and spa. One hundred sixty-seven solar photovoltaic grid-tied panels were installed at the same time on the roof of the maintenance facility. The changes were not publicized, as a White House spokeswoman said the changes were an internal matter. The story was picked up by industry trade journals.
In 2010, Steven Chu, the secretary of energy under the Barack Obama administration, announced that solar panels would be reinstalled on the roof saying that “As we move towards a clean energy economy, the White House will lead by example”. The panels were installed in 2013, making it the first time solar power would be used for the president’s living quarters.
If Trump didn’t remove them why is Biden installing them again?
read the headline, then re-read my comment. see if you can spot the difference.
You said Trump didn’t know they were there so that means that he didn’t remove them. So they’re still there? Am I missing something obvious here?
Missing something obvious
The pentagon and the white house are entirely different buildings.
The article says Pentagon. Not White House.
You don’t need to devalue yourself like this, Trump doesn’t care about you.
Yeah. Let’s not tell him. He probably can’t look up anymore after staring at the solar eclipse so he won’t notice them.
Unfortunately, if a Republican wins the WH, they’ll rip it right off.
can’t wait for Reagan to pull 'em off again
Zombie Reagan would still lose to Trump in the Republican primary
Would certianly look cooler with an all crystal-blue roof
The blue panels are poly-crystaline which are cheaper but less efficient.
Mono-crystaline cells are more efficient but more expensive and are black or nearly black.
Which, tbf, would actually look even more awesome
How bout some bigger tax incentives?
Weird how it’s called the Pentagon when it’s actually a hexagon.
And back to math class you go.
I’m learning Chinese, the only thing keeping me going is the fact more than a billion people speak it. So it can’t literally be impossible, can it?
That took alot of confidence to post, assuming you knew better than literally every other human that came before you, but unfortunately it does indeed have 5 sides.
Yeah, five sides is a hexagon. Hex equals five, or a magic spell.
Please don’t delete this comment lol.
This is a testament to humanity’s intelligence. We will present this as the pinnacle of society when we make first contact with aliens.
🐟
Someone ate the troll bait
Brilliant troll
This is like putting solar panels on an oil rig 🙄
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I’d prefer the oil rig didn’t exist and I’d prefer people stop confusing greenwashing for progress.
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.
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.
I’d take it. Just that little bit less oil we need. Stop trying to shit on everything.
Greenwashing is harmful because it tricks people into thinking there’s been progress and we aren’t on track for the collapse of civilization.
deleted by creator
By trying to present the Pentagon as environmentally friendly, instead of one of the worst polluters on the planet.
By trying to present the Pentagon as environmentally friendly
The only person presenting that narrative is you. Just read the article:
‘Brendan Owens, assistant secretary of Defense for energy, installations and environment, said the projects will improve energy resilience and reliability at the Pentagon and other military sites in the U.S. and Germany. He called energy use "central to everything we do.’‘’
‘Solar panels will provide "an uninterrupted power source’’ at the Pentagon in case of a cyberattack or other outage to the bulk grid, as well as reduce strain on the building’s power load, Owens said in an interview.’
Its not about “green” to that member of the Defense department, its about continued operation and money. Yes, it will also reduce green house gas creation, but the Defense department isn’t even making that claim.
So what you’re doing is putting words in their mouth, then calling them hypocrites for using that language you created. Thats a straight up straw man fallacy you’re using.
Uh huh, and you think they reached out to the media to create this headline because they want us to be informed about building maintenance. Okay lol
deleted by creator
Offtopic, but what office building is bigger?
deleted by creator
Hey look the greenwashing worked.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
How is lessening your carbon footprint greenwashing?
1: this isn’t materially lessening the the pentagons carbon footprint
2: the greenwashing (on you, here, now) is clearly working, hence the justificiation of @[email protected] premise
I saw this and thought: “Hey, that’s a good first step, I wonder how long it is before they take another?” Not that the pentagon went green. Check your bias.
Taking steps that do nothing in lieu of steps that do something is the definition of greenwashing.
Your response:
“Hey, that’s a good first step, …"
Demonstrates the effectiveness of the seeded story. Propaganda and marketing work.
Wow, do you not understand incremental progress? And I never said that they were green. You can acknowledge progress (however slight) without being a stooge. So, what’s the amount of progress that it would take before you stop complaining about the small steps?
This is purely propaganda meant to trick people into thinking the Pentagon is green.
HOW IS IT GREEN WASHING?
deleted by creator
So, they can’t take steps to reduce that?
Bruh you’ve been answered. No need to yell.
That wasn’t an answer, it was a poorly voiced opinion.
As much as I hate the military industrial complex, symbolic actions matter, and we need some form of military so as long as we have a military I hope it will utilize green energy when possible.
Symbolic actions with no substance are purely propaganda.
We don’t need the largest military on Earth.
I agree.
But again, how is this greenwashing?
What do you think the propaganda is for? It’s meant to trick people into thinking we’re making progress so they don’t panic.
Is this not progress?
the alternative is imminent collapse of civilization and no solar panels
the alternative is imminent collapse of civilization and no solar panels
This thinking, the entirety of its attitude. Its why fascism was able to take root in the US.
Its the other half of the mechanism in a ratchet effect that slow walks us into deterioration.
Only revolutionary action and upheaval can take us back.
I’m not going to fucking care if the Pentagon has solar panels while I’m fighting to the death over the last unopened can of beans in an abandoned Walmart.
Yeah, I get it. Not sure that stating the doomer case is any better than installing solar panels, though, is my point. It gets us the same outcome in the end.
If people actually realized how fucked we are they wouldn’t settle for greenwashing. We could get organized and fight back.
I think a lot of oil rigs use solar panels. It’s notike they can burn crude for energy. Everything on the rig has to be brought there by boat, including batteries and fuel.
It’s like whining about capitalism from your iphone
Whining is only permitted on the android platform
Yes I live in society yet I criticize it, you are very smart.
Imagine thinking you have a point
Imagine thinking communism is a poverty cult lol
dat username 😗👌
This would be meaningful. More reporting means more information to wield when convincing people we need more than solar panels.
