4 ms·

In a market system, why is this a problem? How much energy and resources are used in all manner of activities which somebody could consider wasteful? In any ev

In a market system, why is this a problem? How much energy and resources are used in all manner of activities which somebody could consider wasteful? In any event, it seems to me that bitcoin is becoming a proxy for Arthur C Clarke's "megawatt-hour" currency which he predicted would emerge by 2016 [0]. Tying a currency to a fundamental quantity (the Joule) seems like a reasonable way to overcome the deficiencies of fiat currencies. [0] http://www.kurzweilai.net/arthur-c-clarke-offers-his-vision-of-the-future http://www.kurzweilai.net/arthur-c-clarke-offers-his-vision-...

WorldMaker 8y ago
It's a problem because market systems commonly fail at correctly gauging externalities without enforced regulation or taxation to properly tune the market to more effectively balance short term gains against long term/big picture (planetary) losses. Something like Carbon taxes, for instance, might help the market hit a better long-term equilibrium for uses of electricity that takes long-term problems like climate change into better account.
- rando-brando420 8y ago
  Carbon taxes apply to power generation, not power utilization. Put another way, why is it not a problem for millions of people to turn on tv sets and "waste" electricity watching football? What is the logical endpoint of the regulatory approach?
  - WorldMaker 8y ago
    A) See the "something like" hedge. B) Most taxes get "passed on" to the next buyer, eventually. A carbon tax on power generation affects power costs, which in turn affects power utilization. It's not a direct effect, but it's still more awareness of the externality in the market as a whole than without such a tax. C) It's possible that household TV usage is a waste of power utilization, in terms of long term carbon state, and a carbon tax or something like it might encourage more people to watch football games in person or read more books. A carbon tax could encourage more household users to reexamine their power utilization. If you trust the markets to be rational (and that's a wild assumption, I think, these days), people will sort that out for themselves if the market reflected externalities better. D) That said, the people truly fighting against options like carbon taxes are industries whose daily output far outpaces household power utilization and households may not need to change hardly that much, if industry simply got cleaner or paid more of its share of the damage it was causing. E) Just because your hypothetical is a silly one, I think the statistics show that right now in terms of carbon output, staying at home and watching TV is actually one of the best power utilizations with regard to greenhouse gas output of an average household. Most American households' carbon output are most influenced by their a) internal combustion vehicles, b) HVAC systems, c) beef-eating habits, roughly in that order. Modern LED TVs are masters of efficiency with respect to other things in one's household.

WorldMaker 8y ago

It's a problem because market systems commonly fail at correctly gauging externalities without enforced regulation or taxation to properly tune the market to more effectively balance short term gains against long term/big picture (planetary) losses. Something like Carbon taxes, for instance, might help the market hit a better long-term equilibrium for uses of electricity that takes long-term problems like climate change into better account.

rando-brando420 8y ago
Carbon taxes apply to power generation, not power utilization. Put another way, why is it not a problem for millions of people to turn on tv sets and "waste" electricity watching football? What is the logical endpoint of the regulatory approach?
- WorldMaker 8y ago
  A) See the "something like" hedge. B) Most taxes get "passed on" to the next buyer, eventually. A carbon tax on power generation affects power costs, which in turn affects power utilization. It's not a direct effect, but it's still more awareness of the externality in the market as a whole than without such a tax. C) It's possible that household TV usage is a waste of power utilization, in terms of long term carbon state, and a carbon tax or something like it might encourage more people to watch football games in person or read more books. A carbon tax could encourage more household users to reexamine their power utilization. If you trust the markets to be rational (and that's a wild assumption, I think, these days), people will sort that out for themselves if the market reflected externalities better. D) That said, the people truly fighting against options like carbon taxes are industries whose daily output far outpaces household power utilization and households may not need to change hardly that much, if industry simply got cleaner or paid more of its share of the damage it was causing. E) Just because your hypothetical is a silly one, I think the statistics show that right now in terms of carbon output, staying at home and watching TV is actually one of the best power utilizations with regard to greenhouse gas output of an average household. Most American households' carbon output are most influenced by their a) internal combustion vehicles, b) HVAC systems, c) beef-eating habits, roughly in that order. Modern LED TVs are masters of efficiency with respect to other things in one's household.