Once the government bans incandescent lights, as it has mostly done in the US already, and in many other countries such as European countries and Australia, I'm not sure why subsidies are needed. Or I should say, "more" subsidies, since the ban alone is in effect a subsidy.
One point is, this incessant call for subsidies has to be seen as a call for taxation. It's perfectly understandable that many will oppose any new excuse for another subsidy. In the case of LED lights, just because most normal incandescents have been banned already, demand for LEDs has gone up. You can already buy 800 lumen LEDs (60W equivalent) for about $2.50 or so. And people must know that in normal use, these will last many times longer than incandescent bulbs, they use less than 20% of the energy of incandescent bulbs, and they don't get the appliance as hot. All good, right? So why the need for subsidies? (Does it not come across as self-serving, for a company making LEDs trying to make the case for subsidies?)
And I too am not convinced that one must be a signatory to any of these politically-motivated "accords" to do what's right. These accords are more of a vehicle to transfer wealth than they are anything to do with climate change. I'm not particularly a Trump acolyte, but there's a certain consistency in Trump's approach to these things, that the egregiously, shamelessly biased press keeps missing. Whether it's NATO, or whether it's these climate accords, Trump is calling for countries to carry more of their own weight, instead of becoming all indignant when they aren't being subsidized heavily enough.
I'd say, during this administration, trying to make the case for handouts from US taxpayers is not going to get a lot of traction, internally or internationally. But I would not automatically conflate that with not caring about the goals of those asking for handouts. For instance, there's a considerable amount of reforestation taking place in the US. This is a good thing, and I don't think anyone in this administration thinks otherwise?
I would be in favor of turning off LED streetlights when they aren't in use if I had confidence that the sensors would detect me walking my dog sufficiently ahead of time that I don't have to walk through an area of darkness to trip the next light. I'm not sure I trust them to get that right just yet....
On the other hand, I've noticed that the new LED lights in my neighborhood seem noticably brighter thant the old street lights. It would be nice if they'd at least turn them down a bit (especially the one that shines in my bedroom window)
Oh, and I suspect that the excuse for lighting up the parking lots is security but, once again, most of them could be turned down or operate on demand.
Yes, the Paris Agreement is just a typical ineffectual UN thing. But it's better than nothing and gives us something to throw at governments when they do stupid things like open up huge new coal mines. And if enough of us lobbied our governments to get something more concrete they just might listen.
Renter's dilemma. Keep the old incandescents in a cupboard and use your own LED bulbs. Then when you leave, put the incandescents back. (Do all your gardening in pots for the same reason...
Streetlights - with the technology we have (and have had for years) it's so easy to light streetlights only when (as you say) movement is detected or beams are broken. And with LED streetlights, you won't shorten the life with the increased off/ons. So why aren't we doing it?
I'm all for LED lights, but I'm not sure what it matters whether or not we are a signatory of the Paris Agreement. This isn't an actual agreement, it's just a typical ineffectual UN thing where countries get together and make promises they don't plan to keep. It doesn't make a difference.
I agree with the initial cost issue. When I have to replace a bulb I also suffer the Renters' Dilemma, in which you don't want to make a long-term investment that benefits mostly the landlord.
I would like to see more lights turned off when they are not used and less light in general. I'm not certain why we need so many streetlights, but if we are going to have them, they should be connected to motion sensors. (OK, maybe that's not possible for halogen or whatever lights they use now, but it probably would be for LEDs.) The same for interior lights, such as those in some libraries which turn on as you approach. The suburbs here in America are lit up like a Christmas tree but I don't know why. Nor do I understand why large stores light up the parking lot even after closing time; the cost must be tremendous.
The Australian government is bending over backwards to assist a grubby and environmentally questionable Indian millionaire, Gautam Adani, to open Australia's biggest coal mine. Apparently this is OK because it will generate jobs (the actual figure varies wildly) and the coal won't be burned in Australia anyway so it won't add to our share of greenhouse gases. Oh, yes, and Australian coal is high quality so it generates less pollution than other coals.