5 ms·

If you want less carbon burned, tax carbon. I'm skeptical of cryptocurrency, but the idea that regulators, already captured by banks, should aggressively ban ne

If you want less carbon burned, tax carbon. I'm skeptical of cryptocurrency, but the idea that regulators, already captured by banks, should aggressively ban new financial products that may one day threaten the incumbents makes me wary.

beowulfey 5y ago
A carbon tax would filter down to the electricity consumer cost. I dont know about you, but I dont want to pay more for electricity so other people can burn electricity for virtual money. Unless you are suggesting taxing crypto itself, in which case… sure!
- cedricd 5y ago
  That's a common take, but a well-designed carbon tax could be made revenue-neutral and non-regressive. In other words, the amount it takes in can be given back to the average person -- in forms of tax rebates, investment in public transit, education, whatever. In an ideal world a carbon tax would have no adverse impact on lower and middle class people. I should also add that in that world higher electricity cost due to carbon tax is a good thing -- it'll help carbon-neutral sources of energy to compete and replace the more dirty forms. Which is exactly what we want.
  - beowulfey 5y ago
    I have nothing against carbon taxes actually would love to see them implemented, but I am not sure how they would help prevent excessive energy use due to crypto. OP was suggesting a carbon tax instead of direct regulation, but I don’t quite get how it would dissuade crypto use without increasing electricity costs.
- eeperson 5y ago
  Consumers can make a net profit if the tax revenue is paid as a dividend to citizens. There are number of papers about this if you are interested [1]. [1] - https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-pricing-studies/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-pricing-studies/
- tshaddox 5y ago
  I don’t want to pay more for fancy sports cars or houses because other people are willing to pay higher prices for those things either.
- jlmorton 5y ago
  As others have said, a carbon tax can be designed to refund either the entire amount, or a portion of the amount back to consumers, which might also transform it into a non-regressive tax. But perhaps more importantly, you wouldn't be taxed because others are using electricity for virtual money. You would be taxed because your carbon emissions are causing climate change, and to encourage you to reduce energy usage where possible.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  Why is your electricity use posting on HN more virtuous than making Bitcoin?
- micropresident 5y ago
  Crypto is already taxed. All money has a cost on society. You have to do something to maintain its value. You don't think wars in the middle east -- to maintain the petrodollar -- have an environmental impact? And when it isn't oil it'll be fights over germanium and lithium veins. If you actually cared to do more than sit in a chair -- advocating random things you didn't research -- you'd be advocating for Thorium power. Thorium is nearly as abundant as lead -- it's all over the place -- and it's much more clean and less dangerous than even solar or wind.
- lifty 5y ago
  Yes, because that's the negative externality, the carbon that you dump in the atmosphere by consuming electricty. Would you be willing to pay more so that videogaming is not banned as well, or would you ban that too? Also, you can make the tax progressive so that the high consumers can pay much more.
- disruptalot 5y ago
  Why should anyone pay for your consumption and values when you aren't willing to pay for others?
Nursie 5y ago
> If you want less carbon burned, tax carbon. What if we want to decide that we want to minimise carbon, but some use of energy is preferable (for instance consumer/home use) to bootstrapping new financial products?
- chii 5y ago
  > but some use of energy is preferable and that's where the price signals what is preferable. The correct allocation of energy should be based on the price people are willing to pay for the energy. Like any other commodity.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    > The correct allocation of energy should be based on the price people are willing to pay for the energy. Why? Why is that 'correct'? Why would we not want to ensure the population has affordable energy for home use, but others seeking to make a profit from it rather than use it for basic needs pay more? You phrase your reply as some sort of moral absolute, but it's nothing of the sort.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      > Why would we not want to ensure the population has affordable energy for home use, but others seeking to make a profit from it rather than use it for basic needs pay more? Because we already have the former and we don't need the latter. A carbon tax with a dividend doesn't make life harder for lower income people, because they already have below-average energy consumption (wealthier people have bigger houses that need more heat etc.) and as a result the dividend would be larger than what they pay in tax. But you still want them to have good incentives. If they can use the dividend to switch to solar or buy an electric car, you want them to do this, because that's the whole point. Meanwhile there is no reason to charge profit-seeking enterprises more than the true cost of their usage, because all that's doing is inhibiting economically productive activity. Aluminum smelting uses a tremendous amount of electricity, but what you want is to cause them to switch to non-carbon electrical generation, not to shut down operations.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
If anything the regulatory solution would be to find the ways in which demand for cryptocurrency exists because of failures in the existing financial system, and fix them so that the existing financial system can satisfy them. Allow bank accounts that work exactly like coin wallets, but rely on the banking system rather than PoW. An obvious example is the existence of pseudonymous digital payments. Given that cryptocurrency already exists, and will continue to exist for all illicit activities even if you ban it, you might as well let people open numbered accounts at a bank. Do this for any other advantage cryptocurrency has over the existing banking system and there is no more demand for cryptocurrency. And without demand, the price crashes and people stop burning coal to mine it.

beowulfey 5y ago

A carbon tax would filter down to the electricity consumer cost. I dont know about you, but I dont want to pay more for electricity so other people can burn electricity for virtual money. Unless you are suggesting taxing crypto itself, in which case… sure!

cedricd 5y ago
That's a common take, but a well-designed carbon tax could be made revenue-neutral and non-regressive. In other words, the amount it takes in can be given back to the average person -- in forms of tax rebates, investment in public transit, education, whatever. In an ideal world a carbon tax would have no adverse impact on lower and middle class people. I should also add that in that world higher electricity cost due to carbon tax is a good thing -- it'll help carbon-neutral sources of energy to compete and replace the more dirty forms. Which is exactly what we want.
- beowulfey 5y ago
  I have nothing against carbon taxes actually would love to see them implemented, but I am not sure how they would help prevent excessive energy use due to crypto. OP was suggesting a carbon tax instead of direct regulation, but I don’t quite get how it would dissuade crypto use without increasing electricity costs.
eeperson 5y ago
Consumers can make a net profit if the tax revenue is paid as a dividend to citizens. There are number of papers about this if you are interested [1]. [1] - https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-pricing-studies/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-pricing-studies/
tshaddox 5y ago
I don’t want to pay more for fancy sports cars or houses because other people are willing to pay higher prices for those things either.
jlmorton 5y ago
As others have said, a carbon tax can be designed to refund either the entire amount, or a portion of the amount back to consumers, which might also transform it into a non-regressive tax. But perhaps more importantly, you wouldn't be taxed because others are using electricity for virtual money. You would be taxed because your carbon emissions are causing climate change, and to encourage you to reduce energy usage where possible.
Spooky23 5y ago
Why is your electricity use posting on HN more virtuous than making Bitcoin?
micropresident 5y ago
Crypto is already taxed. All money has a cost on society. You have to do something to maintain its value. You don't think wars in the middle east -- to maintain the petrodollar -- have an environmental impact? And when it isn't oil it'll be fights over germanium and lithium veins. If you actually cared to do more than sit in a chair -- advocating random things you didn't research -- you'd be advocating for Thorium power. Thorium is nearly as abundant as lead -- it's all over the place -- and it's much more clean and less dangerous than even solar or wind.
lifty 5y ago
Yes, because that's the negative externality, the carbon that you dump in the atmosphere by consuming electricty. Would you be willing to pay more so that videogaming is not banned as well, or would you ban that too? Also, you can make the tax progressive so that the high consumers can pay much more.
disruptalot 5y ago
Why should anyone pay for your consumption and values when you aren't willing to pay for others?

Nursie 5y ago

> If you want less carbon burned, tax carbon. What if we want to decide that we want to minimise carbon, but some use of energy is preferable (for instance consumer/home use) to bootstrapping new financial products?

chii 5y ago
> but some use of energy is preferable and that's where the price signals what is preferable. The correct allocation of energy should be based on the price people are willing to pay for the energy. Like any other commodity.
- Nursie 5y ago
  > The correct allocation of energy should be based on the price people are willing to pay for the energy. Why? Why is that 'correct'? Why would we not want to ensure the population has affordable energy for home use, but others seeking to make a profit from it rather than use it for basic needs pay more? You phrase your reply as some sort of moral absolute, but it's nothing of the sort.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > Why would we not want to ensure the population has affordable energy for home use, but others seeking to make a profit from it rather than use it for basic needs pay more? Because we already have the former and we don't need the latter. A carbon tax with a dividend doesn't make life harder for lower income people, because they already have below-average energy consumption (wealthier people have bigger houses that need more heat etc.) and as a result the dividend would be larger than what they pay in tax. But you still want them to have good incentives. If they can use the dividend to switch to solar or buy an electric car, you want them to do this, because that's the whole point. Meanwhile there is no reason to charge profit-seeking enterprises more than the true cost of their usage, because all that's doing is inhibiting economically productive activity. Aluminum smelting uses a tremendous amount of electricity, but what you want is to cause them to switch to non-carbon electrical generation, not to shut down operations.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

If anything the regulatory solution would be to find the ways in which demand for cryptocurrency exists because of failures in the existing financial system, and fix them so that the existing financial system can satisfy them. Allow bank accounts that work exactly like coin wallets, but rely on the banking system rather than PoW. An obvious example is the existence of pseudonymous digital payments. Given that cryptocurrency already exists, and will continue to exist for all illicit activities even if you ban it, you might as well let people open numbered accounts at a bank. Do this for any other advantage cryptocurrency has over the existing banking system and there is no more demand for cryptocurrency. And without demand, the price crashes and people stop burning coal to mine it.