6 ms·

> The scariest part is that this is apparently insanely profitable for them. NY is pretty progressive and it would not surprise me if they crack down on this ki

> The scariest part is that this is apparently insanely profitable for them. NY is pretty progressive and it would not surprise me if they crack down on this kind of thing, but other states or countries seem unlikely to do that. And this is why you need a carbon tax. These clowns are basically making money by turning negative externalities into bitcoin. And the best way to deal with a negative externality is to tax the heck out of those folks and thereby either a) make the activity unprofitable, or b) use the resulting revenues to plow into mitigation efforts to offset the effects of the externality.

lordnacho 5y ago
I don't get why the law separates between connected and disconnected power plants? Seems a lot less simple than just saying "everyone who pollutes pays x". This is also why carbon tax is gonna be a disappointment. There are way too many rules surrounding it, when really there should just be one carbon budget that every firm can try to buy some of on equal terms.
- bombcar 5y ago
  The law likely didn't consider disconnected power plants, as why would such a thing exist? I guess the only reason before bitcoin is a self-contained power plant to run a self-contained facility, and even those (like a datacenter) are often grid tied with the power plant as a backup.
  - p1mrx 5y ago
    I think this is an example of capitalism finding exploits in the legal system. We should try to patch this one quickly.
    - gwright 5y ago
      Capitalism isn't exploiting anything. People make the laws, people operate businesses. It isn't clear to me that these concerns are absent under any other system -- in fact I would argue that capitalism paired with a liberal representative democracy and strong individual rights is the best system for addressing any concerns.
      - p1mrx 5y ago
        I don't think capitalism is "wrong" for finding an exploit, but those liberal representative democracies should realize that turning retired power plants into miners is bad, and pass laws to prevent that business model from working.
        gwright 5y ago
        Why impugn "capitalism" when you could have just said that the business model has negative consequences that should be addressed via legislation? I was reacting to the non-sequitur that you were suggesting that somehow capitalism was at fault in this situation.
    - bombcar 5y ago
      I don't think people realize how much of things like the tax code are basically code patches to law to fix exploitable bugs.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    > The law likely didn't consider disconnected power plants, as why would such a thing exist? I think the point is that why would the law make the distinction anyway? Like why would it say "power plants connected to a power grid pay X tax"? Why wouldn't it just say "power plants pay X tax"? A sibling comment points out a reasonable explanation for why non-connected power plants might be exempt from tax, though.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  Probably because the owners, operators, and/or manufacturers of generating equipment lobbied to get excluded. It's the same reason why emissions regulations apply specifically to reciprocating engines only up to a certain threshold of displacement per cylinder: it exempts the products of Caterpillar.
- MisterTea 5y ago
  > I don't get why the law separates between connected and disconnected power plants? Assuming they made an exception for private plants that belong to a campus of some sort. Many airports, universitys, housing projects, water treatment facilities, prisons, data centers, etc, run their own power plants primarily for heating and cooling needs with the added benefit of 24/7 onsite power in case of a blackout. They may be grid tied and export some power but are not primary grid suppliers like a utility.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    Why should those private plants get an exception? All you jave done is provide a "who", not a "why".
    - jandrese 5y ago
      Partially it is a scale thing. The state only has so many inspectors, so if you limit the law to large industrial users you don't need to have inspectors driving around to tens of thousands of tiny single-use boilers inspecting them for environmental requirements they would never be able to afford in the first place.
      - shkkmo 5y ago
        Then it seems like scale should be part qualifying for the exemption. In this case the power plant is absolutely at a large enough scale that it should be regulated.
    - MisterTea 5y ago
      > Why should those private plants get an exception? Ask the law makers who wrote it. > All you jave done is provide a "who", not a "why". The word "private" is the "why". If you want an analogy: Do you follow food safety and preparation laws or submit to inspection in your private kitchen before making yourself breakfast? No. Because it's private.
      - shkkmo 5y ago
- munk-a 5y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if the law dated back to electrification and specifically existed to grandfather in mills that had independent electrical supplies before the grid was established - like a textile mill with a water wheel that hooked the axle up to a generator. Remember too that AC vs. DC was very much up in the air in the early days of electricity so any early investors in generators would have to gamble on which standard would win for transmission and some of them would end up being incompatible with the grid unless they installed transformers. A sane government would want to allow those early adopters to keep using what they've got until it breaks and not penalize those companies for investing in new technology.
jandrese 5y ago
Carbon taxes have come up in Congress from time to time, but the fossil fuel industries are much too politically connected. The excuse is usually that if you tax carbon all you do is move the polluters offshore, and since CO2 is a global problem it doesn't solve anything. Global problems need global solutions, but our international treaty systems are insufficient to make progress on this pressing issue. People still try, Kyoto was a heroic effort, but at the end of the day the incentives to cheat are powerful and thus the level of trust is very low.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > The excuse is usually that if you tax carbon all you do is move the polluters offshore, and since CO2 is a global problem it doesn't solve anything. Global problems need global solutions, but our international treaty systems are insufficient to make progress on this pressing issue. Which is, of course, ridiculous. They bought a coal power plant in New York, because it already existed. They're not going to disassemble it and transport it to China because that wouldn't be cost effective, so the alternative is that it would remain offline. Likewise, if people buy electric cars or high MPG hybrids in the US because there is a carbon tax, that reduces the CO2 emitted by the US independent of what anybody else does. It doesn't require any international agreement; you can just do it on your own. "What about global effects," you say. But that goes the other way. Africa doesn't buy new cars by and large, they buy used cars exported from America and Europe. If the new cars people buy in America or Europe become electric then they'll still be electric when they're the used cars sold to Africa. Oil is a global commodity. If America burns less then the price goes down. Which makes it cheaper for other countries to independently enact a carbon tax. Which they have the incentive to do because they get brownie points, and their domestic population doesn't rebel against a change that only keeps the price the same, and it generates revenue at the expense of the (foreign) oil companies. The more countries do this, the easier it is for the others to do it, at the expense of oil net exporters like Saudi Arabia and Russia. Nothing about this requires an international agreement or any kind of cooperation from anyone. Just enact a carbon tax and pay the revenue back to the population as a dividend. It will be extremely popular as soon as everybody gets the first check and realizes that they get back more than they paid because some of the money comes from oil companies and other corporations (who receive none of the dividend).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
whywhywhywhy 5y ago
Why does the answer to everything have to be a tax that allows government to become even more bloated. If using computing power like this is so bad just make it illegal to use excessive computing power, why allow it but let the government scoop up the cream.
- jude- 5y ago
  > Why does the answer to everything have to be a tax that allows government to become even more bloated. Because assholes exist who will gladly burn the planet down to make a buck. > If using computing power like this is so bad just make it illegal to use excessive computing power, why allow it but let the government scoop up the cream. Because enforcing an effective regime on capping the amount of power each US resident can use for computing is considerably _more_ difficult (and results in _more_ bloat) than just taxing emissions.
  - whywhywhywhy 5y ago
    Taxing emissions just allows some government a-hole to make a buck and you still get the emissions how is that better? If you think it would be structured in a way that would stop emissions you’re naive because tax makers would rather still make money than stop something. Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Taxes solve nothing and ONLY exist to keep poor people poor and middle class people middle class.
    - erentz 5y ago
      > Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Most studies have found that increasing taxes on cigarettes does reduce smoking prevalence.
    - jude- 5y ago
      > Taxing emissions just allows some government a-hole to make a buck and you still get the emissions how is that better? Easy: sanction their asses. We banned CFCs, remember? We didn't even need 100% compliance to be effective at repairing the ozone hole! > Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Taxing alcohol and tobacco reduce their use, thereby reducing the harm they bring. [1] [2] [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204416 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... [2] https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043816 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publh...
josu 5y ago
This isn't correct, they are carbon neutral. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/greenidge-generation-bitcoin-mining-operation-to-be-carbon-neutral-in-2021-and-beyond-301291782.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/greenidge-generatio...
- mikestew 5y ago
  You're using their press release as a source? I can't tell if it's intended to be ironic or serious.
- henearkr 5y ago
  Why would they operate out of a gas plant if they intend to be carbon neutral? Either they offset it by creating green electricity elsewhere, in which case they should be using that instead of gas in the first place, or either they are offseting using very slow "net-neutral" schemes such as agroforestry, in which case the harm they do will not be compensated until 30 years on.
  - josu 5y ago
    The answer is in the press release: Portfolio of Fully Accredited Carbon Offset Credits Starting June 1st
    - henearkr 5y ago
      Then it means a huge carbon footprint not offset until decades from now. (as carbon offsetting is typically slow) So their business is criminal.

lordnacho 5y ago

I don't get why the law separates between connected and disconnected power plants? Seems a lot less simple than just saying "everyone who pollutes pays x". This is also why carbon tax is gonna be a disappointment. There are way too many rules surrounding it, when really there should just be one carbon budget that every firm can try to buy some of on equal terms.

bombcar 5y ago
The law likely didn't consider disconnected power plants, as why would such a thing exist? I guess the only reason before bitcoin is a self-contained power plant to run a self-contained facility, and even those (like a datacenter) are often grid tied with the power plant as a backup.
- p1mrx 5y ago
  I think this is an example of capitalism finding exploits in the legal system. We should try to patch this one quickly.
  - gwright 5y ago
    Capitalism isn't exploiting anything. People make the laws, people operate businesses. It isn't clear to me that these concerns are absent under any other system -- in fact I would argue that capitalism paired with a liberal representative democracy and strong individual rights is the best system for addressing any concerns.
    - p1mrx 5y ago
      I don't think capitalism is "wrong" for finding an exploit, but those liberal representative democracies should realize that turning retired power plants into miners is bad, and pass laws to prevent that business model from working.
      - gwright 5y ago
        Why impugn "capitalism" when you could have just said that the business model has negative consequences that should be addressed via legislation? I was reacting to the non-sequitur that you were suggesting that somehow capitalism was at fault in this situation.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    I don't think people realize how much of things like the tax code are basically code patches to law to fix exploitable bugs.
- kelnos 5y ago
  > The law likely didn't consider disconnected power plants, as why would such a thing exist? I think the point is that why would the law make the distinction anyway? Like why would it say "power plants connected to a power grid pay X tax"? Why wouldn't it just say "power plants pay X tax"? A sibling comment points out a reasonable explanation for why non-connected power plants might be exempt from tax, though.
jeffbee 5y ago
Probably because the owners, operators, and/or manufacturers of generating equipment lobbied to get excluded. It's the same reason why emissions regulations apply specifically to reciprocating engines only up to a certain threshold of displacement per cylinder: it exempts the products of Caterpillar.
MisterTea 5y ago
> I don't get why the law separates between connected and disconnected power plants? Assuming they made an exception for private plants that belong to a campus of some sort. Many airports, universitys, housing projects, water treatment facilities, prisons, data centers, etc, run their own power plants primarily for heating and cooling needs with the added benefit of 24/7 onsite power in case of a blackout. They may be grid tied and export some power but are not primary grid suppliers like a utility.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Why should those private plants get an exception? All you jave done is provide a "who", not a "why".
  - jandrese 5y ago
    Partially it is a scale thing. The state only has so many inspectors, so if you limit the law to large industrial users you don't need to have inspectors driving around to tens of thousands of tiny single-use boilers inspecting them for environmental requirements they would never be able to afford in the first place.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      Then it seems like scale should be part qualifying for the exemption. In this case the power plant is absolutely at a large enough scale that it should be regulated.
  - MisterTea 5y ago
    > Why should those private plants get an exception? Ask the law makers who wrote it. > All you jave done is provide a "who", not a "why". The word "private" is the "why". If you want an analogy: Do you follow food safety and preparation laws or submit to inspection in your private kitchen before making yourself breakfast? No. Because it's private.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
munk-a 5y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if the law dated back to electrification and specifically existed to grandfather in mills that had independent electrical supplies before the grid was established - like a textile mill with a water wheel that hooked the axle up to a generator. Remember too that AC vs. DC was very much up in the air in the early days of electricity so any early investors in generators would have to gamble on which standard would win for transmission and some of them would end up being incompatible with the grid unless they installed transformers. A sane government would want to allow those early adopters to keep using what they've got until it breaks and not penalize those companies for investing in new technology.

jandrese 5y ago

Carbon taxes have come up in Congress from time to time, but the fossil fuel industries are much too politically connected. The excuse is usually that if you tax carbon all you do is move the polluters offshore, and since CO2 is a global problem it doesn't solve anything. Global problems need global solutions, but our international treaty systems are insufficient to make progress on this pressing issue. People still try, Kyoto was a heroic effort, but at the end of the day the incentives to cheat are powerful and thus the level of trust is very low.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> The excuse is usually that if you tax carbon all you do is move the polluters offshore, and since CO2 is a global problem it doesn't solve anything. Global problems need global solutions, but our international treaty systems are insufficient to make progress on this pressing issue. Which is, of course, ridiculous. They bought a coal power plant in New York, because it already existed. They're not going to disassemble it and transport it to China because that wouldn't be cost effective, so the alternative is that it would remain offline. Likewise, if people buy electric cars or high MPG hybrids in the US because there is a carbon tax, that reduces the CO2 emitted by the US independent of what anybody else does. It doesn't require any international agreement; you can just do it on your own. "What about global effects," you say. But that goes the other way. Africa doesn't buy new cars by and large, they buy used cars exported from America and Europe. If the new cars people buy in America or Europe become electric then they'll still be electric when they're the used cars sold to Africa. Oil is a global commodity. If America burns less then the price goes down. Which makes it cheaper for other countries to independently enact a carbon tax. Which they have the incentive to do because they get brownie points, and their domestic population doesn't rebel against a change that only keeps the price the same, and it generates revenue at the expense of the (foreign) oil companies. The more countries do this, the easier it is for the others to do it, at the expense of oil net exporters like Saudi Arabia and Russia. Nothing about this requires an international agreement or any kind of cooperation from anyone. Just enact a carbon tax and pay the revenue back to the population as a dividend. It will be extremely popular as soon as everybody gets the first check and realizes that they get back more than they paid because some of the money comes from oil companies and other corporations (who receive none of the dividend).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

whywhywhywhy 5y ago

Why does the answer to everything have to be a tax that allows government to become even more bloated. If using computing power like this is so bad just make it illegal to use excessive computing power, why allow it but let the government scoop up the cream.

jude- 5y ago
> Why does the answer to everything have to be a tax that allows government to become even more bloated. Because assholes exist who will gladly burn the planet down to make a buck. > If using computing power like this is so bad just make it illegal to use excessive computing power, why allow it but let the government scoop up the cream. Because enforcing an effective regime on capping the amount of power each US resident can use for computing is considerably _more_ difficult (and results in _more_ bloat) than just taxing emissions.
- whywhywhywhy 5y ago
  Taxing emissions just allows some government a-hole to make a buck and you still get the emissions how is that better? If you think it would be structured in a way that would stop emissions you’re naive because tax makers would rather still make money than stop something. Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Taxes solve nothing and ONLY exist to keep poor people poor and middle class people middle class.
  - erentz 5y ago
    > Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Most studies have found that increasing taxes on cigarettes does reduce smoking prevalence.
  - jude- 5y ago
    > Taxing emissions just allows some government a-hole to make a buck and you still get the emissions how is that better? Easy: sanction their asses. We banned CFCs, remember? We didn't even need 100% compliance to be effective at repairing the ozone hole! > Think I’m wrong? Cigarettes and alcohol still kill people they’re just highly taxed. Taxing alcohol and tobacco reduce their use, thereby reducing the harm they bring. [1] [2] [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204416 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... [2] https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043816 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publh...

josu 5y ago

This isn't correct, they are carbon neutral. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/greenidge-generation-bitcoin-mining-operation-to-be-carbon-neutral-in-2021-and-beyond-301291782.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/greenidge-generatio...

mikestew 5y ago
You're using their press release as a source? I can't tell if it's intended to be ironic or serious.
henearkr 5y ago
Why would they operate out of a gas plant if they intend to be carbon neutral? Either they offset it by creating green electricity elsewhere, in which case they should be using that instead of gas in the first place, or either they are offseting using very slow "net-neutral" schemes such as agroforestry, in which case the harm they do will not be compensated until 30 years on.
- josu 5y ago
  The answer is in the press release: Portfolio of Fully Accredited Carbon Offset Credits Starting June 1st
  - henearkr 5y ago
    Then it means a huge carbon footprint not offset until decades from now. (as carbon offsetting is typically slow) So their business is criminal.