Solar

The carbon footprint for just buying the computer you typed the above on outweighed the Whole Kalahari tribes carbon footprint

Prove it.
Simple enough, just provide the exact numbers. Prove that any of the materials and manufacturing processes used were produced by anything other than natural renewable energy sources such as hydro electric power.
Also provide an exact figure on the CO2 output of the biofuels used by the Kalahari Bushmen in cooking their meals.
Even burning animal dung produces CO2.

It is a proven fact that the burning of biofuels in Asia and India has caused continuing and increasing loss of glacier ice and even impacted the Arctic ice sheets. That has been known since the 1960's when Airforce weather planes first observed the "Brown Asian Haze" as far north as the arctic ice cap.
Black Carbon particulate pollution does not simply go away when the affected ice melts. The particulates gather in surface pools and continue to asorb sunlight to produce melt water. That was proven around 2012.
Wildfires in Canada and Russia, which are no new thing since records of Siberian wildfires go back to the 13th century, are known to contribute to melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

Another example of the "climate scientists" getting their wires crossed was in blaming the Australian droughts and wildfires on higher temperatures. Its been proven that drought conditions in Australia was caused by unusually low SST in the Indian Ocean.
In California the Santa Anna winds, which are hot and dry, are actually caused by abnormally low temperature and arid air masses dropping to near sea level and becoming heated by compression. Something just about anyone who claimed to be a climate scientist would know, but which few seem to want to admit. The California wildfires are for the most part then caused by cold air rather than global warming.
Ice loss on some Antarctic islands has been found to be caused by similar effects, air heated by friction as it travels down mountain sides.
Much ice loss in the Himalayas and inland Antarctica was found to occur during temperatures far below zero. The process of sublimation caused by super cold arid air masses vaporizes ice without the ice first going through a liquid stage.
Far too few supposed climate scientists take these proven facts into account and "journalist" never do.
Sloppy hysterical reporting has been a continuing problem. I well remember when they were claiming a record high temperature at the North Pole, then having to admit they had mistaken the township of North Pole Alaska for the actual north pole.

That was a non answer. Perhaps because you continue to fail to grasp the situation.
You claimed that Oil Companies now recognize climate change. So are you in fact now claiming that they are obscuring the facts to promote belief in catastrophic climate change?
Since few governments have not signed off on the Paris Accord are they the "Many" you speak of?

Love is in the air 😁

Does the option exist for you to place the panels on the ground rather than the roof?

have fun
kfw

My you are behind the times. The situation of recent years is practically the opposite of what you've stated.
The Oil companies found they could continue to sell oil regardless of their stated position, and have diversified into renewable energy to make even greater profits. The same people are profiting no matter what.

Whether you believe everything you read about climate change or not its obvious on the face of it that the Paris accord is an outright scam.
I can remember when the UN was lauding the Red Chinese for their reduction in greenhouse gases, until they found the Reds had been falsifying the data for more than a decade.
They lauded the Reds for canceling a number of coal fired power stations, then discovered these were canceled because they had far more coal power plants than those regions needed or could ever use. The actual consumption of coal increased.
Red China continues to enjoy literal immunity from responsibility for any of its actions. While The Germans have made themselves almost entirely dependent on Russian for their future energy needs. Not a wise move at all.
No need going into the upheaval in France over their gasoline prices.

England managed to meet its goals for awhile, only because their manufacturing sector collapsed. Not a good trade off.

That sounds like a public defender trying to weasel his client out from under a fraudulent land deal.
Now you are making my point for me.

Watch out for those Telsa deals. It could end up costing more per month than less, and one might not live long enough to see any benefits except for Telsa.

If you have trees in your lot that could pose a problem. You would not believe the damage a veritable rain of wind storm driven of walnuts from a 50+ foot walnut tree can do to a stack of storm windows and doors taken off during a remodel.
Luckily I'd only intended to reuse one of those storm windows.
That morning I was surveying the damage and felt lucky that window had only lost the lower pane, when a final walnut dropped shattering the upper pane.

I paid 1 K USD to have two huge trees removed from my yard to avoid just that sort of outcome.
I had noticed a distinct lean of one Maple in the front yard that had it fallen would have smashed my Neighbors new Cadillac. On examining the stump I found it had rotted from the roots up.
I cut down six other large trees by myself. Managing to smash three fence panels when a thick tangle of vines caused one to swing to the side as it fell. Luckily I had an extra fence panel and salvaged enough wood from the smashed ones to make up the difference. Much better than it falling on my Neighbors storage buildings.

Google Project Sunroof.

Should provide some interesting information.

I looked at it here in Florida and found the payoff for my house would be 20yrs, assuming full efficiency of the panels. More realistically if I assume steady degradation of the panels, pay off is obviously worse.

Only thing that would make it useful is massive tax credits or grants.