6 ms·

It’s interesting to see this article for me because it is similar to the “Bitcoin is bad because CO2” articles and arguments that arise from time to time. To wh

by erentz 7y ago

It’s interesting to see this article for me because it is similar to the “Bitcoin is bad because CO2” articles and arguments that arise from time to time. To which I’ve unsuccessfully attempted to argue you can’t really say Bitcoin is bad and shouldn’t be allowed to exist for that reason without also agreeing that other stupid things we do with computers should suffer the same fate. Which surprisingly attracts a fair amount of defenders for the Snapchat et-als. What we can do is to be neutral to how it’s used, and instead make sure that electricity is appropriately priced to cover its externalities. That means a carbon tax. The same solution is still the right one for Bitcoin as it is for other silly computer uses mentioned in this article. If it becomes too expensive to deliver Snapchat when electricity is properly priced then Snapchat won’t exist. So on.

davidw 7y ago
> That means a carbon tax. This seems like the most sensible route, rather than trying to dictate what is 'ok' and what is not.
helen___keller 7y ago
The pluses about a carbon tax is that it also affects the more invisible ways that we are killing the environment - hating on big tech is cool, hating on the car you use to get to work isn't as cool. Both should be taxed relative to their emissions.
- noobermin 7y ago
  The ironic bit is personal cars account for 20% of the US emissions already. Transportation is the largest category, at near 30%. Electricity is a close second, but pretending data centers use more than say the air conditioners across the US is probably false. Sure, per individual, data centers might use more, but something like better insulating houses would probably do more on net for emissions than just dismantling one data center, and ditching your car and riding public transit will probably do more than that.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
    There's always some other industry/technology/nation/group that uses <X> times the energy: "China emits far more CO_2" (total), "The US emits far more CO_2" (per capita), "Industry emits far more than households", etc.
    - noobermin 7y ago
      I mean you're right that it has to be everyone, not just one or two groups that reduce emissions. But that is the point actually. Most likely, the way to address emissions will include consumption by the US and production by China. Any imaginations that anything outside of that (or short of that) will fail.
maximente 7y ago
carbon taxes are regressive insofar as the poor spend a larger % of their income on fuels than the rich and this is often not negotiable - people can't choose to e.g. not commute half an hour to work when they don't have much disposable income to start with, whereas the rich can generally pay for whatever quantity they want to consume already. so the point of the tax (reduce consumption) unfairly hits the poor.
- xvedejas 7y ago
  A Carbon tax would also disproportionately help the poor, especially the global poor, so it's not fair to call it regressive without finding a way to put some numbers on both the costs and benefits. Besides, the money gained from a carbon tax isn't lost, it can be reinvested in things like public transit infrastructure.
  - huntie 7y ago
    Public transit is not viable in most of the US.
    - gshubert17 7y ago
      > Public transit is not viable in most of the US. Since many US cities had public transit a century ago (and don't today), I wonder if you mean technically viable, economically viable, or politically attainable. I'm guessing the latter, and it's sad.
      - huntie 7y ago
        No I mean it is not viable in any way if you leave the bubble of US cities which account for a small percentage of the total area. Rural US is struggling just to make school buses work. The distances are too great and the people too few to ever support public transit. Any tax on fuel/cars screws rural areas who have no other choice.
        7y ago
hos234 7y ago
Hmm...how would it effect Porn? I would guess they are larger than Snapchat.
forgottenpass 7y ago
>you can’t really say Bitcoin is bad and shouldn’t be allowed to exist for that reason without also agreeing that other stupid things we do with computers should suffer the same fate That point is debatable because Bitcoin and snapchat are different in kind. For bitcoin to function, it must be deliberately very computationally expensive. Generally speaking other software limits deliberately costly operations to certain functions (e.g. password hashing) and inefficiencies caused by of developers disinterested in performance can be reworked. Even the resource draw of a high end gaming for a few (or many) hours a week and a 24/7 miner are distinguishable in both raw and cost/benifit ways.

by erentz 7y ago

davidw 7y ago

> That means a carbon tax. This seems like the most sensible route, rather than trying to dictate what is 'ok' and what is not.

helen___keller 7y ago

The pluses about a carbon tax is that it also affects the more invisible ways that we are killing the environment - hating on big tech is cool, hating on the car you use to get to work isn't as cool. Both should be taxed relative to their emissions.

noobermin 7y ago
The ironic bit is personal cars account for 20% of the US emissions already. Transportation is the largest category, at near 30%. Electricity is a close second, but pretending data centers use more than say the air conditioners across the US is probably false. Sure, per individual, data centers might use more, but something like better insulating houses would probably do more on net for emissions than just dismantling one data center, and ditching your car and riding public transit will probably do more than that.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  There's always some other industry/technology/nation/group that uses <X> times the energy: "China emits far more CO_2" (total), "The US emits far more CO_2" (per capita), "Industry emits far more than households", etc.
  - noobermin 7y ago
    I mean you're right that it has to be everyone, not just one or two groups that reduce emissions. But that is the point actually. Most likely, the way to address emissions will include consumption by the US and production by China. Any imaginations that anything outside of that (or short of that) will fail.

maximente 7y ago

carbon taxes are regressive insofar as the poor spend a larger % of their income on fuels than the rich and this is often not negotiable - people can't choose to e.g. not commute half an hour to work when they don't have much disposable income to start with, whereas the rich can generally pay for whatever quantity they want to consume already. so the point of the tax (reduce consumption) unfairly hits the poor.

xvedejas 7y ago
A Carbon tax would also disproportionately help the poor, especially the global poor, so it's not fair to call it regressive without finding a way to put some numbers on both the costs and benefits. Besides, the money gained from a carbon tax isn't lost, it can be reinvested in things like public transit infrastructure.
- huntie 7y ago
  Public transit is not viable in most of the US.
  - gshubert17 7y ago
    > Public transit is not viable in most of the US. Since many US cities had public transit a century ago (and don't today), I wonder if you mean technically viable, economically viable, or politically attainable. I'm guessing the latter, and it's sad.
    - huntie 7y ago
      No I mean it is not viable in any way if you leave the bubble of US cities which account for a small percentage of the total area. Rural US is struggling just to make school buses work. The distances are too great and the people too few to ever support public transit. Any tax on fuel/cars screws rural areas who have no other choice.
      - 7y ago

hos234 7y ago

Hmm...how would it effect Porn? I would guess they are larger than Snapchat.

forgottenpass 7y ago

>you can’t really say Bitcoin is bad and shouldn’t be allowed to exist for that reason without also agreeing that other stupid things we do with computers should suffer the same fate That point is debatable because Bitcoin and snapchat are different in kind. For bitcoin to function, it must be deliberately very computationally expensive. Generally speaking other software limits deliberately costly operations to certain functions (e.g. password hashing) and inefficiencies caused by of developers disinterested in performance can be reworked. Even the resource draw of a high end gaming for a few (or many) hours a week and a 24/7 miner are distinguishable in both raw and cost/benifit ways.