7 ms·

And then there's the bitcoin miners who bought a natural gas power plant. Speculation drives so many evils for short term gain to a very few beneficiaries, blin

And then there's the bitcoin miners who bought a natural gas power plant. Speculation drives so many evils for short term gain to a very few beneficiaries, blinded to all future impacts to everyone else. If ever there was an argument for carbon tax, here it is. https://www.archpaper.com/2021/04/greenidge-power-plant-mine-bitcoin-raising-fears-of-a-climate-crash/ https://www.archpaper.com/2021/04/greenidge-power-plant-mine...

cies 6y ago
Exactly. Make pollution (incl CO2) sooooo heavily taxed that we can lower the tax on other "more wholesome" things (like income from labor and housing). And the market will solve this issue real fast. Sadly the power structures in place prevent creative thought, as those milking the cows of the status quo prevent change.
- worldofmatthew 6y ago
  It would also have a worse effect on the poorest.
  - gruez 6y ago
    That's true of most consumption taxes, but this can be offset by giving a fixed tax credit to everyone. eg. if the median person is expected to pay $1000/yr in carbon taxes, then give them a yearly check for $1000 so it doesn't cost them extra. If they can reduce carbon on top of that, great! It's free money for them.
  - andruby 6y ago
    Besides lowering income tax, what else could help offset this?
    - fighterpilot 6y ago
      Lower sales tax.
    - hedora 6y ago
      Universal basic income. (And, in the US, replacing the current income tax system with a flat tax. Due to loopholes, the US system is regressive after a certain income level. A flat tax isn’t)
      - garraeth 6y ago
        Tangentially, is is presumptions to see the wave of stimulus checks as the genesis of a UBI system, not named as such, but essentially what we will end up with? Since many times government programs are never rolled back. Imagine: every 6 months or so, $X gets sent out.
        klmadfejno 6y ago
        Sounds incredibly unlikely to me. It's also neither universal, nor basic. Which is perhaps healthier in the long run.
      - klmadfejno 6y ago
        The us income tax may be regressive past certain income levels, but for the 99% of the population below those levels, it's a progressive system. A flat tax might be more progressive on average, weighted in dollars, but will undoubtedly be more regressive to the majority of poor people.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > The us income tax may be regressive past certain income levels, but for the 99% of the population below those levels, it's a progressive system. "Regular people pay higher marginal rates than rich people, but other than that it's a progressive tax system" is basically the opposite of a progressive tax system. But on top of that, it isn't even true that the marginal rates paid in practice by lower income people are lower than those paid by middle income people, because of benefits phase outs. The system we currently have is worse than a flat tax across the board. The people at the bottom pay the highest marginal rates. The only sense in which it's progressive is the same one you get with a UBI and a flat tax, i.e. that the effective rates on the poor are lower because the taxes they pay are more than offset by the lump sum benefit(s).
  - endymi0n 6y ago
    The German CO2 as currently implemented gives back the credits via the electricity bill (essentially lowering the high taxes there, but could also be a credit). While not perfect, it strikes me as a rather great „90%“ solution since it gives back the tax in roughly the same proportion as energy use and cost (single/couple/family), so it‘s pretty fair to the poor as well.
  - lukifer 6y ago
    The concept of a Pigovian tax [0] on externalities is to dissuade anti-social behavior by assigning it a price, while giving the proceeds right back to citizens as a universal dividend. It would actually function as a progressive tax, with the poorest collecting more than they pay in, and is heavily favored by economists [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax [1] https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/ https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/
    - hedora 6y ago
      In this case, the universal dividend could be invested in carbon capture. Carbon negative coal(). Woot! () Certainly causes cancer, respiratory damage and widespread property and ecological damage. Not available in all locations.
- clairity 6y ago
  > ‘...that we can lower the tax on other "more wholesome" things (like income from labor and housing)’ we don’t necessarily need lower income taxes across the board, but rather a sharp, smooth sigmoidal tax rate curve with the inflection point at the median income. and an end to deductions and carveouts like the lower capital gains tax. that one change would fix a lot of incentive problems in the fiscal system. edit: i should add that we likely don’t need to lower taxes on housing either, as it won’t make a dent in getting more people housed where they want. what we need to lower are the barriers to development, like restrictive zoning, overly specified building codes, and arduous permitting and review processes.
- kansface 6y ago
  If we did that, we’d merely outsource all carbon heavy industries to where they’d inevitably pollute way more. You could try to do a carbon VAT I suppose - sounds tricky in practice because there is no market price discovery equivalent for emitted carbon (before/after manufacture), and taxation before markets was a dumpster fire mess.
  - cies 6y ago
    Then we tax pollution imports at the border :) Because, as you point out well, this is not a matter of national interest: this is a world wide problem. We have all types of tax already in place, we just need to emphasize. If we dont the run for profit will make human life unbearable in many places.
- kansface 6y ago
  Not that I disagree per se, but there is no way of verifying the co2 emissions that goes into making anything from any foreign country ... even approximately. Edit, meant to reply below
fighterpilot 6y ago
Capitalism/trade is generally morally good for all consenting stakeholders (with a few exceptions such as taking advantage of addictions) and morally ambivalent for everyone else. That ambivalence for parties outside of the consenting exchange can lead to negative or positive externalities. Ideally these negative externalities are banned (if they're too extreme, such as with lead pollution) or taxed. I wish more adults understood the above. Capitalism isn't always an unadulterated good (for people outside of the exchange) but it mostly is positive-sum good for people within the exchange, and we need government to implement taxes that prevent the former and otherwise mostly stay out of the way for the latter.
- frzj 6y ago
  > Capitalism/trade is generally morally good for all consenting stakeholders (with a few exceptions such as taking advantage of addictions) and morally ambivalent for everyone else. It is so because morality is the affirmitation of societal norms. > I wish more adults understood the above. Capitalism isn't always an unadulterated good (for people outside of the exchange) but it mostly is positive-sum good for people within the exchange, and we need government to implement taxes that prevent the former and otherwise mostly stay out of the way for the latter. Your argument goes the way that lousing each other is beneficial to all if there are strict rules and punishment for those that don't louse back, instead of simply washing yourself or seeking other ways to delouse oneself. I'm well off and thanks to wide diversification of assets my future descendants will have all the time in the world to wonder why people still equate labor and property.
- lukifer 6y ago
  "Capitalism" is not merely a short-hand for "trade"; it's also a theory of capital. And its shortcomings are numerous: not only the ones you describe (externalities, exploitation of addictive behavior), but also game-theoretic races to the bottom, rent-seeking behavior, conflating capital with land [0], zero-sum positional goods, quasi-sociopathic corporations, the list goes on. Your core point is a good one: trade tends to be mutually beneficial, and good policies of ownership design [1] incentivize net-positive wealth creation. But there's a lot of good and bad ideas (and ideology) wrapped up in "capitalism" as such; it's worth teasing them all apart independently rather than the simple "Capitalism: Y/N" stances that pervade the discourse. I'm frankly ready to banish the words "capitalism" and "socialism" from our vocabulary entirely; they're simply not helpful. [0] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr... [1] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/601899/mine-by-michael-heller-and-james-salzman/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/601899/mine-by-mich...
bko 6y ago
Mining bitcoin is a terrible way to speculate on the price of Bitcoin. Why not just buy/short it directly?
bamboozled 6y ago
Is it really true that Bitcoin mining is such a huge source of emissions ?
- xiphias2 6y ago
  It is, but what people omit is that the energy is protecting the 14th largest currency in the world. For fiat currencies military is providing protrction of that value with other things, so it's quite hard to compare the enrrgy needed by other countries to protect their currency (Marco Polo was a great Netflix series showing what happens to a currency when the military is defeated).

cies 6y ago

Exactly. Make pollution (incl CO2) sooooo heavily taxed that we can lower the tax on other "more wholesome" things (like income from labor and housing). And the market will solve this issue real fast. Sadly the power structures in place prevent creative thought, as those milking the cows of the status quo prevent change.

worldofmatthew 6y ago
It would also have a worse effect on the poorest.
- gruez 6y ago
  That's true of most consumption taxes, but this can be offset by giving a fixed tax credit to everyone. eg. if the median person is expected to pay $1000/yr in carbon taxes, then give them a yearly check for $1000 so it doesn't cost them extra. If they can reduce carbon on top of that, great! It's free money for them.
- andruby 6y ago
  Besides lowering income tax, what else could help offset this?
  - fighterpilot 6y ago
    Lower sales tax.
  - hedora 6y ago
    Universal basic income. (And, in the US, replacing the current income tax system with a flat tax. Due to loopholes, the US system is regressive after a certain income level. A flat tax isn’t)
    - garraeth 6y ago
      Tangentially, is is presumptions to see the wave of stimulus checks as the genesis of a UBI system, not named as such, but essentially what we will end up with? Since many times government programs are never rolled back. Imagine: every 6 months or so, $X gets sent out.
      - klmadfejno 6y ago
        Sounds incredibly unlikely to me. It's also neither universal, nor basic. Which is perhaps healthier in the long run.
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      The us income tax may be regressive past certain income levels, but for the 99% of the population below those levels, it's a progressive system. A flat tax might be more progressive on average, weighted in dollars, but will undoubtedly be more regressive to the majority of poor people.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > The us income tax may be regressive past certain income levels, but for the 99% of the population below those levels, it's a progressive system. "Regular people pay higher marginal rates than rich people, but other than that it's a progressive tax system" is basically the opposite of a progressive tax system. But on top of that, it isn't even true that the marginal rates paid in practice by lower income people are lower than those paid by middle income people, because of benefits phase outs. The system we currently have is worse than a flat tax across the board. The people at the bottom pay the highest marginal rates. The only sense in which it's progressive is the same one you get with a UBI and a flat tax, i.e. that the effective rates on the poor are lower because the taxes they pay are more than offset by the lump sum benefit(s).
- endymi0n 6y ago
  The German CO2 as currently implemented gives back the credits via the electricity bill (essentially lowering the high taxes there, but could also be a credit). While not perfect, it strikes me as a rather great „90%“ solution since it gives back the tax in roughly the same proportion as energy use and cost (single/couple/family), so it‘s pretty fair to the poor as well.
- lukifer 6y ago
  The concept of a Pigovian tax [0] on externalities is to dissuade anti-social behavior by assigning it a price, while giving the proceeds right back to citizens as a universal dividend. It would actually function as a progressive tax, with the poorest collecting more than they pay in, and is heavily favored by economists [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax [1] https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/ https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/
  - hedora 6y ago
    In this case, the universal dividend could be invested in carbon capture. Carbon negative coal(). Woot! () Certainly causes cancer, respiratory damage and widespread property and ecological damage. Not available in all locations.
clairity 6y ago
> ‘...that we can lower the tax on other "more wholesome" things (like income from labor and housing)’ we don’t necessarily need lower income taxes across the board, but rather a sharp, smooth sigmoidal tax rate curve with the inflection point at the median income. and an end to deductions and carveouts like the lower capital gains tax. that one change would fix a lot of incentive problems in the fiscal system. edit: i should add that we likely don’t need to lower taxes on housing either, as it won’t make a dent in getting more people housed where they want. what we need to lower are the barriers to development, like restrictive zoning, overly specified building codes, and arduous permitting and review processes.
kansface 6y ago
If we did that, we’d merely outsource all carbon heavy industries to where they’d inevitably pollute way more. You could try to do a carbon VAT I suppose - sounds tricky in practice because there is no market price discovery equivalent for emitted carbon (before/after manufacture), and taxation before markets was a dumpster fire mess.
- cies 6y ago
  Then we tax pollution imports at the border :) Because, as you point out well, this is not a matter of national interest: this is a world wide problem. We have all types of tax already in place, we just need to emphasize. If we dont the run for profit will make human life unbearable in many places.
kansface 6y ago
Not that I disagree per se, but there is no way of verifying the co2 emissions that goes into making anything from any foreign country ... even approximately. Edit, meant to reply below

fighterpilot 6y ago

Capitalism/trade is generally morally good for all consenting stakeholders (with a few exceptions such as taking advantage of addictions) and morally ambivalent for everyone else. That ambivalence for parties outside of the consenting exchange can lead to negative or positive externalities. Ideally these negative externalities are banned (if they're too extreme, such as with lead pollution) or taxed. I wish more adults understood the above. Capitalism isn't always an unadulterated good (for people outside of the exchange) but it mostly is positive-sum good for people within the exchange, and we need government to implement taxes that prevent the former and otherwise mostly stay out of the way for the latter.

frzj 6y ago
> Capitalism/trade is generally morally good for all consenting stakeholders (with a few exceptions such as taking advantage of addictions) and morally ambivalent for everyone else. It is so because morality is the affirmitation of societal norms. > I wish more adults understood the above. Capitalism isn't always an unadulterated good (for people outside of the exchange) but it mostly is positive-sum good for people within the exchange, and we need government to implement taxes that prevent the former and otherwise mostly stay out of the way for the latter. Your argument goes the way that lousing each other is beneficial to all if there are strict rules and punishment for those that don't louse back, instead of simply washing yourself or seeking other ways to delouse oneself. I'm well off and thanks to wide diversification of assets my future descendants will have all the time in the world to wonder why people still equate labor and property.
lukifer 6y ago
"Capitalism" is not merely a short-hand for "trade"; it's also a theory of capital. And its shortcomings are numerous: not only the ones you describe (externalities, exploitation of addictive behavior), but also game-theoretic races to the bottom, rent-seeking behavior, conflating capital with land [0], zero-sum positional goods, quasi-sociopathic corporations, the list goes on. Your core point is a good one: trade tends to be mutually beneficial, and good policies of ownership design [1] incentivize net-positive wealth creation. But there's a lot of good and bad ideas (and ideology) wrapped up in "capitalism" as such; it's worth teasing them all apart independently rather than the simple "Capitalism: Y/N" stances that pervade the discourse. I'm frankly ready to banish the words "capitalism" and "socialism" from our vocabulary entirely; they're simply not helpful. [0] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progress-and-poverty https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-progr... [1] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/601899/mine-by-michael-heller-and-james-salzman/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/601899/mine-by-mich...

bko 6y ago

Mining bitcoin is a terrible way to speculate on the price of Bitcoin. Why not just buy/short it directly?

bamboozled 6y ago

Is it really true that Bitcoin mining is such a huge source of emissions ?

xiphias2 6y ago
It is, but what people omit is that the energy is protecting the 14th largest currency in the world. For fiat currencies military is providing protrction of that value with other things, so it's quite hard to compare the enrrgy needed by other countries to protect their currency (Marco Polo was a great Netflix series showing what happens to a currency when the military is defeated).