4 ms·

How about we just make people pay for their negative externalities, and let them do whatever they want. Tonnes of things people do are wasteful, no one needs a

How about we just make people pay for their negative externalities, and let them do whatever they want. Tonnes of things people do are wasteful, no one needs a sports car either, but for some people it is worth paying extra for it. Why should it matter what I'm using my electricity for as long as I pay for the negative effects. If you want to encourage other uses of electricity, subsidize them, don't just ban arbitrary forms of consumption.

Nursie 5y ago
> How about we just make people pay for their negative externalities, and let them do whatever they want. Well, for one, because that tends to mean "rich folks and large companies can act with impunity, everyone else not so much". For two, we actually do discriminate quite happily between different uses of things. Maybe it's OK to keep energy prices low for households, as a compromise, but not for crypto mining?
- GhostVII 5y ago
  Whats the problem with rich fold acting with impunity, so long as they pay for what they use? If someone burns enough electricity to power 1000 homes, but they pay for the environmental impact, and are charged enough for the electricity to fund building more generation capacity, that's a net win. Giving each household some amount of free or subsidized power makes sense. If they want to burn that power crypto mining that's their decision.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    > If someone burns enough electricity to power 1000 homes, but they pay for the environmental impact ... Well, firstly, are we even sure that's really possible? > Giving each household some amount of free or subsidized power makes sense Which is basically exactly what I was talking about - we can and do decide that some uses are better than others, and use regulation (some of which may be tax or credit) to achieve that. We already do this. I'm not sure why people are so aghast that we might do it some more for PoW cryptocurrencies.

Nursie 5y ago

> How about we just make people pay for their negative externalities, and let them do whatever they want. Well, for one, because that tends to mean "rich folks and large companies can act with impunity, everyone else not so much". For two, we actually do discriminate quite happily between different uses of things. Maybe it's OK to keep energy prices low for households, as a compromise, but not for crypto mining?

GhostVII 5y ago
Whats the problem with rich fold acting with impunity, so long as they pay for what they use? If someone burns enough electricity to power 1000 homes, but they pay for the environmental impact, and are charged enough for the electricity to fund building more generation capacity, that's a net win. Giving each household some amount of free or subsidized power makes sense. If they want to burn that power crypto mining that's their decision.
- Nursie 5y ago
  > If someone burns enough electricity to power 1000 homes, but they pay for the environmental impact ... Well, firstly, are we even sure that's really possible? > Giving each household some amount of free or subsidized power makes sense Which is basically exactly what I was talking about - we can and do decide that some uses are better than others, and use regulation (some of which may be tax or credit) to achieve that. We already do this. I'm not sure why people are so aghast that we might do it some more for PoW cryptocurrencies.