Politically expedient but dramatically inefficient and less effective is... still dramatically inefficient and less effective. The idea that it's clear that this is "good" relies on a bunch of assumptions about carbon costs that haven't been made. It's not sufficient to say "fossil fuels are bad, solar is good," because then you make stupidly inefficient decisions that limit your overall capacity to tackle the big problem.
The problem is that "dramatically inefficient and less effective" is relative. People are comparing it to some scenario that is simply not going to happen like the state funding large solar and wind farms. Once again, I don't know whether this proposal is good or not. I just think it is a mistake to to oppose proposals that move us in the right direction solely because they don't move us in that direction quick enough or far enough.
I'm thankful that state funding for large solar and wind farms is not going to happen, because there's little that could guarantee a worse or less efficient long-term result.
As long as carbon costs can't be priced into the market, the solutions are going to be short-sighted, politically motivated/maintained, and inefficient.
