I don't think a change towards solar energy should be done on a personal level and not one home at a time. I also think that there should be no subsidies, regulation will be enough.
For example, a government could place a ban on building new fossil fuel plants. This will force energy companies to invest in other forms of energy. I think it can really be as simple as that.
I would prefer that big companies take care of it and build large solar array plants. Then you've the advantage of scale. Maintenance will be easier too. It will also be easier to handle excess power on site (and not wasted on transport)
Another necessary development might be the need to build superconducting cables from deserts to large cities. In that way, transport loss of electricity can be reduced.
The latter article proposes that such a cable can be combined with the actual transport of liquid hydrogen from deserts to cities. Although, liquifying hydrogen costs a lot of energy, I wonder if it's worth it to transport it like this.
Right now energy plants are located everywhere near big cities, to reduce the transport cost of electricity. Solar panels are placed in cities because it's close to the consumer.
Similarly, a solar/wind based energy grid like the current one (with homes with solar panels) would require to build H2 and CH4 manufacturing plants near every city to catch excess energy without too much loss... I wonder if that will be cost effective.
On a side-note, when I was looking for information about the sulfur emission by anoxic oceans I found this article on acid rain and its effects on plants.
You gotta love the internet
When I'm thinking about acid rain, I usually think about the moonscape images from Sudbury and that's how I imagine how a future acid world would look like. But a lot has changed there...