4 ms·

Carbon tax everything, why limit yourself to cryptocurrencies?

Mordisquitos 6y ago
Exactly. To be precise, carbon tax energy, so that everything that uses energy needs to factor carbon emissions in their costs. The whole point of carbon taxes is to internalise the cost of carbon emissions into everything, to put the market to work on better alternatives. Limiting carbon taxes to any particular service or product would be a market distortion and would defeat the purpose. If carbon taxes hurt cryptocurrency mining and their value collapses in favour of less-energy-intensive digital payment platforms, that would be great. If on the other hand cryptocurrencies innovate towards less-energy-intensive methods of mining and their value continues to soar, that would also be great.
- cwkoss 6y ago
  Carbon tax carbon emitting energy. Don't tax solar panels, that would be short sighted and regressive.
  - Mordisquitos 6y ago
    Of course, I meant applying a carbon (i.e. "carbon-dependent") tax at the point of energy production, not on energy production itself in abstract. I can see how it could give that impression by how I phrased my second paragraph in terms of energy-intensiveness rather than carbon-intensiveness, but my intention was to abstract away which specific source of energy each industry made use of, assuming a unified and homogeneous electrical grid. Ironically, much that I am critical of criptocurrencies' energy expenditure, they may be more adaptable to carbon taxation than conventional digital transaction networks (SEPA, Visa, etc.) because they are in fact more centralised in their energy consumption. A cryptocurrency mining outfit could somewhat easily become self-sufficient in terms of energy relying on wind power or solar power, becoming immune to carbon taxation (and innocent in terms of carbon emissions). The energy consumption from conventional payment networks, even though it is not as inherently energy-expensive as cryptocurrencies, is so massively distributed across countries and businesses at multiple levels that they could not simply go non-carbon overnight.
    - cwkoss 6y ago
      Good points. I felt the need to be pendantic on that point because I see a lot of lazy accounting around energy emmission harms. It is unfortunately common for people to write about the harms from an amount of energy consumption without considering what type of energy production is actually used. I've read several articles in the past month that essentially had the lazy incorrect math such as: Activity Foo uses X MWh, X MWh is Y% of total energy production. Burning fuels emits Z tons of CO2 and W amount of other harmful polutants. Therefore Activity Foo is responsible for Y% of Z CO2 and Y% of W pollution. Becoming a pet peeve of mine. Bitcoin (~39%) has about double the proportion of green energy usage as global energy consumption (~17%)! If these numbers are accurate, it seems like cryptomining should be some-amount-less concerning than the broad energy economy in terms of greening our infrastructure.

Exactly. To be precise, carbon tax energy, so that everything that uses energy needs to factor carbon emissions in their costs. The whole point of carbon taxes is to internalise the cost of carbon emissions into everything, to put the market to work on better alternatives. Limiting carbon taxes to any particular service or product would be a market distortion and would defeat the purpose. If carbon taxes hurt cryptocurrency mining and their value collapses in favour of less-energy-intensive digital payment platforms, that would be great. If on the other hand cryptocurrencies innovate towards less-energy-intensive methods of mining and their value continues to soar, that would also be great.

cwkoss 6y ago
Carbon tax carbon emitting energy. Don't tax solar panels, that would be short sighted and regressive.
- Mordisquitos 6y ago
  Of course, I meant applying a carbon (i.e. "carbon-dependent") tax at the point of energy production, not on energy production itself in abstract. I can see how it could give that impression by how I phrased my second paragraph in terms of energy-intensiveness rather than carbon-intensiveness, but my intention was to abstract away which specific source of energy each industry made use of, assuming a unified and homogeneous electrical grid. Ironically, much that I am critical of criptocurrencies' energy expenditure, they may be more adaptable to carbon taxation than conventional digital transaction networks (SEPA, Visa, etc.) because they are in fact more centralised in their energy consumption. A cryptocurrency mining outfit could somewhat easily become self-sufficient in terms of energy relying on wind power or solar power, becoming immune to carbon taxation (and innocent in terms of carbon emissions). The energy consumption from conventional payment networks, even though it is not as inherently energy-expensive as cryptocurrencies, is so massively distributed across countries and businesses at multiple levels that they could not simply go non-carbon overnight.
  - cwkoss 6y ago
    Good points. I felt the need to be pendantic on that point because I see a lot of lazy accounting around energy emmission harms. It is unfortunately common for people to write about the harms from an amount of energy consumption without considering what type of energy production is actually used. I've read several articles in the past month that essentially had the lazy incorrect math such as: Activity Foo uses X MWh, X MWh is Y% of total energy production. Burning fuels emits Z tons of CO2 and W amount of other harmful polutants. Therefore Activity Foo is responsible for Y% of Z CO2 and Y% of W pollution. Becoming a pet peeve of mine. Bitcoin (~39%) has about double the proportion of green energy usage as global energy consumption (~17%)! If these numbers are accurate, it seems like cryptomining should be some-amount-less concerning than the broad energy economy in terms of greening our infrastructure.