3 ms·

This is not an edge case at all. Who is to decide on what to spend energy or not? This is curing the symptoms only. The (counter) solution is not to discuss fo

This is not an edge case at all. Who is to decide on what to spend energy or not? This is curing the symptoms only. The (counter) solution is not to discuss for what to burn coal, but to finally stop burning coal, oil and gas. USA and EU could do that within a few years. And then stop or tax imports from countries that still do burn coal. But that is inconvenient for many, so they prefer discussing nerdy Bitcoin PoW instead.

helmholtz 5y ago
I mean, thank you for offering the alternative solution! I couldn't agree more that not burning coal is the only ultimate solution. A severe, possibly overly severe, Carbon tax is maybe the way. But as the great Stephen Schneider once quoted some other great, "Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good". And he was talking about cap and trade vs carbon tax!
- insert_coin 5y ago
  The real reason is twofold, first and more importantly, because you don't know the unintended consequences of proposing something like that. Who knows what else would get caught between the regulatory framework needed to prevent someone from doing math, because let's face it, that is impossible so unintended consequences will be the only consequences. And secondly and most importantly, the government should not decide what products are allowed to be traded: Governments should lift all bans on products currently banned, all drugs, all books, all music, all banned clothing, etc.
  - giaour 5y ago
    The last sentence comes off as a rhetorical sleight of hand. You can be against censorship of books and music and still believe that the government has a role to play in regulating dangerous goods like plutonium. The trade of goods with an outsized environmental impact is regulated today, though this mostly shows up as restrictions on chemicals that are themselves direct pollutants.
    - insert_coin 5y ago
      Sure, you can be against anything, pro anything, and believe in anything. What I believe is what I wrote, you can believe governments should control plutonium if you want.
layla5alive 5y ago
You do realize that while sunlight and wind are renewable, lithium-ion batteries are not, right? Nor are solar panels. Cadmium and lithium are highly toxic materials we must mine, just like coal. They have the benefit of not directly adding CO2 to the atmosphere as you use them -- but they come with their own set of issues. There is no free lunch. POW is Proof of Waste, and we shouldn't be blithely wasting any of these non-renewables.
AlexCoventry 5y ago
> stop burning coal, oil and gas. USA and EU could do that within a few years. Is there a concrete plan for how this would work documented somewhere? The ways I can think of doing this in the USA are all politically nonviable.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "politically nonviable" Which makes it a self-inflicted injury. Like corruotion in Russia - it can't be adressed by anyone else.
- throwaway744678 5y ago
  Electricity produced in France by coal + gas + oil is around 8% (vs. 70% nuclear, 10% hydro, the rest is wind + solar + bio-energy). It took more than "a few years" to build, though.
merpnderp 5y ago
If you think the US and EU could completely stop burning coal, oil, and gas in a few years (less than 10?), you must know something no one else knows, or this plan involves a lot of dead people. But I'd love to hear more about it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
emptyfile 5y ago
Agree. Wasting energy on bitcoin isn't the problem, energy production causing earth to heat up is the problem. I can think of many things equally or similarly energy wasteful as Bitcoin.
- SerLava 5y ago
  What is something more wasteful than Bitcoin? It's a nondescript pollution factory from the Captain Planet cartoons. Every other wasteful activity has just been overconsumptive, decadent, or externalized, not an actual burning of resources for no reason.
- quickthrowman 5y ago
  What things are similarly energy wasteful as Bitcoin?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - emptyfile 5y ago
    American SUVs and trucks come to mind. We can for now ignore the wooden, uninsulated houses built in the desert with the AC on for 6-9 months of the year.
- damon_c 5y ago
  Yes. The weird thing about bitcoin is that at least mining it doesn't create additional waste products. If you spent the same energy used to mine bitcoin on producing Legos or In-N-Out burgers, then you'd have much bigger problems. I
- zikduruqe 5y ago
  Like lawns. We seriously use way too much water, chemicals, energy and time on a plant crop that is basically only for our visual enjoyment. We often think of the big fixes, which are needed, where there are some low hanging fruit we could pick first that would make an impact. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2010/06/04/the-problem-of-lawns/ https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2010/06/04/the-problem-of-... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practice/the-american-obsession-with-lawns/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practic...
toomanybeersies 5y ago
> so they prefer discussing nerdy Bitcoin PoW instead Why not both?
8note 5y ago
I don't think it's useful to spin up nuclear reactors to run Bitcoin PoW either. All energy production will have an environmental cost, not just carbon dioxide emitting ones.

helmholtz 5y ago

I mean, thank you for offering the alternative solution! I couldn't agree more that not burning coal is the only ultimate solution. A severe, possibly overly severe, Carbon tax is maybe the way. But as the great Stephen Schneider once quoted some other great, "Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good". And he was talking about cap and trade vs carbon tax!

insert_coin 5y ago
The real reason is twofold, first and more importantly, because you don't know the unintended consequences of proposing something like that. Who knows what else would get caught between the regulatory framework needed to prevent someone from doing math, because let's face it, that is impossible so unintended consequences will be the only consequences. And secondly and most importantly, the government should not decide what products are allowed to be traded: Governments should lift all bans on products currently banned, all drugs, all books, all music, all banned clothing, etc.
- giaour 5y ago
  The last sentence comes off as a rhetorical sleight of hand. You can be against censorship of books and music and still believe that the government has a role to play in regulating dangerous goods like plutonium. The trade of goods with an outsized environmental impact is regulated today, though this mostly shows up as restrictions on chemicals that are themselves direct pollutants.
  - insert_coin 5y ago
    Sure, you can be against anything, pro anything, and believe in anything. What I believe is what I wrote, you can believe governments should control plutonium if you want.

layla5alive 5y ago

You do realize that while sunlight and wind are renewable, lithium-ion batteries are not, right? Nor are solar panels. Cadmium and lithium are highly toxic materials we must mine, just like coal. They have the benefit of not directly adding CO2 to the atmosphere as you use them -- but they come with their own set of issues. There is no free lunch. POW is Proof of Waste, and we shouldn't be blithely wasting any of these non-renewables.

AlexCoventry 5y ago

> stop burning coal, oil and gas. USA and EU could do that within a few years. Is there a concrete plan for how this would work documented somewhere? The ways I can think of doing this in the USA are all politically nonviable.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"politically nonviable" Which makes it a self-inflicted injury. Like corruotion in Russia - it can't be adressed by anyone else.
throwaway744678 5y ago
Electricity produced in France by coal + gas + oil is around 8% (vs. 70% nuclear, 10% hydro, the rest is wind + solar + bio-energy). It took more than "a few years" to build, though.

merpnderp 5y ago

If you think the US and EU could completely stop burning coal, oil, and gas in a few years (less than 10?), you must know something no one else knows, or this plan involves a lot of dead people. But I'd love to hear more about it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

emptyfile 5y ago

Agree. Wasting energy on bitcoin isn't the problem, energy production causing earth to heat up is the problem. I can think of many things equally or similarly energy wasteful as Bitcoin.

SerLava 5y ago
What is something more wasteful than Bitcoin? It's a nondescript pollution factory from the Captain Planet cartoons. Every other wasteful activity has just been overconsumptive, decadent, or externalized, not an actual burning of resources for no reason.
quickthrowman 5y ago
What things are similarly energy wasteful as Bitcoin?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- emptyfile 5y ago
  American SUVs and trucks come to mind. We can for now ignore the wooden, uninsulated houses built in the desert with the AC on for 6-9 months of the year.
damon_c 5y ago
Yes. The weird thing about bitcoin is that at least mining it doesn't create additional waste products. If you spent the same energy used to mine bitcoin on producing Legos or In-N-Out burgers, then you'd have much bigger problems. I
zikduruqe 5y ago
Like lawns. We seriously use way too much water, chemicals, energy and time on a plant crop that is basically only for our visual enjoyment. We often think of the big fixes, which are needed, where there are some low hanging fruit we could pick first that would make an impact. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2010/06/04/the-problem-of-lawns/ https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2010/06/04/the-problem-of-... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practice/the-american-obsession-with-lawns/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practic...

toomanybeersies 5y ago

> so they prefer discussing nerdy Bitcoin PoW instead Why not both?

8note 5y ago

I don't think it's useful to spin up nuclear reactors to run Bitcoin PoW either. All energy production will have an environmental cost, not just carbon dioxide emitting ones.