3 ms·

This is nonsensical. If you want to tax carbon, tax it regardless what it is used for. What you are describing penalizes somebody who uses clean energy for min

by VMG 5y ago

This is nonsensical. If you want to tax carbon, tax it regardless what it is used for. What you are describing penalizes somebody who uses clean energy for mining and ignores somebody who uses coal power for running his bot farm.

skohan 5y ago
Using clean energy for mining still increases the total demand for electricity which is going to result in more dirty energy production no matter what.
- FDSGSG 5y ago
  Using clean energy for anything still increases the total demand for electricity which is going to result in more dirty energy production no matter what.
  - skohan 5y ago
    Yeah fine, but then it's still completely consistent that if your goal is to decrease overall energy consumption, you would find ways to curtail energy intensive activities which provide little social value.
    - FDSGSG 5y ago
      You don't have any credible argument against a real carbon tax, do you? Only an utter clown would waste time bikeshedding about cryptocurrencies when you could focus on real solutions. E: Can't reply below, but here's a very real argument for you. It's completely absurd to bikeshed about banning an activity that doesn't even exist in Sweden at any meaningful scale. Discussing whether or not Sweden should ban cryptomining is utterly pointless when nobody is (planning to start) mining in Sweden at any significant scale. It really does matter what government officials spend their time on, this is an utter waste. To suggest that they're doing a good thing here is just incredible.
      - skohan 5y ago
        No I would support a real carbon tax. I would also support regulating specific activities with perverse incentive structures, like cryptocurrency mining. You don't have a real argument do you if you are are resorting to name calling and ad-hominem attacks?
    - VMG 5y ago
      Great, let's get rid of the military industrial complex then
      - skohan 5y ago
        Yes I would support this as well. Let's get rid of all the non-contributive activities.
        VMG 5y ago
        My plan is to take away the governments printing press which funds the destruction. What is yours?
        skohan 5y ago
        Do you think cryptocurrency will eliminate the military industrial complex? What prevents the people who currently have most of the capital, many of whom are benefitting from the military industrial complex, from using their capital to dominate and control cryptocurrency?
agilob 5y ago
>If you want to tax carbon, tax it regardless what it is used for. And this will happen, we will pay carbon tax for meat, electricity and electronics. I would like to get a tax discount for planting trees too, but we know that's now how governments work.
- FDSGSG 5y ago
  At least in theory the government should benefit from economies of scale and do a much better job at planting trees than you ever could.
- quasisphere 5y ago
  I think what could be worth exploring is progressive energy taxing. Basically let each individual consume a certain amount which is needed for living a normal life, but tax energy usage exceeding that increasingly heavily. On top of this base model one could then also introduce subsidies for specific energy intensive industries that are deemed essential (probably not bitcoin). That would handle the distribution of limited* amount of energy we have. CO2 emissions should probably be taxed separately and progressive rates would seem reasonable to me here as well. * Yes, we can still build more, but at some point the energy usage has to stagnate. Exponential growth in usage would lead the Earth to become very hot in a few hundred years since the only way heat gets released to space is via infrared radiation which is limited by the surface area of the planet [1, Section 1.3]. [1] Murphy, T.: Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet (2021), a free textbook at https://doi.org/10.21221/S2978-0-578-86717-5 https://doi.org/10.21221/S2978-0-578-86717-5
isodev 5y ago
I think it makes sense and aligns with the article's point. Unless we are at a point where clean energy is ubiquitous (there is no other kind), using power for mining or other power intensive processes which do not help us achieve our climate goals should be off-limits.
- Mirioron 5y ago
  Why stop there though? Why don't we ban everything that uses energy and is unnecessary for achieving our climate goals? Video games? Banned. Alcohol? Banned. Driving? Banned. Exercise? Banned - it increases your daily caloric needs. Food? Why would you need food? Eat your government rations. Why should we prefer some activities over others by government decree? Have we not learned from the past? Oh, you're growing the wrong kind of plant? To jail! Oh, you're doing the wrong kinds of calculations? To jail!

by VMG 5y ago

skohan 5y ago

Using clean energy for mining still increases the total demand for electricity which is going to result in more dirty energy production no matter what.

FDSGSG 5y ago
Using clean energy for anything still increases the total demand for electricity which is going to result in more dirty energy production no matter what.
- skohan 5y ago
  Yeah fine, but then it's still completely consistent that if your goal is to decrease overall energy consumption, you would find ways to curtail energy intensive activities which provide little social value.
  - FDSGSG 5y ago
    You don't have any credible argument against a real carbon tax, do you? Only an utter clown would waste time bikeshedding about cryptocurrencies when you could focus on real solutions. E: Can't reply below, but here's a very real argument for you. It's completely absurd to bikeshed about banning an activity that doesn't even exist in Sweden at any meaningful scale. Discussing whether or not Sweden should ban cryptomining is utterly pointless when nobody is (planning to start) mining in Sweden at any significant scale. It really does matter what government officials spend their time on, this is an utter waste. To suggest that they're doing a good thing here is just incredible.
    - skohan 5y ago
      No I would support a real carbon tax. I would also support regulating specific activities with perverse incentive structures, like cryptocurrency mining. You don't have a real argument do you if you are are resorting to name calling and ad-hominem attacks?
  - VMG 5y ago
    Great, let's get rid of the military industrial complex then
    - skohan 5y ago
      Yes I would support this as well. Let's get rid of all the non-contributive activities.
      - VMG 5y ago
        My plan is to take away the governments printing press which funds the destruction. What is yours?
        skohan 5y ago
        Do you think cryptocurrency will eliminate the military industrial complex? What prevents the people who currently have most of the capital, many of whom are benefitting from the military industrial complex, from using their capital to dominate and control cryptocurrency?

agilob 5y ago

>If you want to tax carbon, tax it regardless what it is used for. And this will happen, we will pay carbon tax for meat, electricity and electronics. I would like to get a tax discount for planting trees too, but we know that's now how governments work.

FDSGSG 5y ago
At least in theory the government should benefit from economies of scale and do a much better job at planting trees than you ever could.
quasisphere 5y ago
I think what could be worth exploring is progressive energy taxing. Basically let each individual consume a certain amount which is needed for living a normal life, but tax energy usage exceeding that increasingly heavily. On top of this base model one could then also introduce subsidies for specific energy intensive industries that are deemed essential (probably not bitcoin). That would handle the distribution of limited* amount of energy we have. CO2 emissions should probably be taxed separately and progressive rates would seem reasonable to me here as well. * Yes, we can still build more, but at some point the energy usage has to stagnate. Exponential growth in usage would lead the Earth to become very hot in a few hundred years since the only way heat gets released to space is via infrared radiation which is limited by the surface area of the planet [1, Section 1.3]. [1] Murphy, T.: Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet (2021), a free textbook at https://doi.org/10.21221/S2978-0-578-86717-5 https://doi.org/10.21221/S2978-0-578-86717-5

isodev 5y ago

I think it makes sense and aligns with the article's point. Unless we are at a point where clean energy is ubiquitous (there is no other kind), using power for mining or other power intensive processes which do not help us achieve our climate goals should be off-limits.

Mirioron 5y ago
Why stop there though? Why don't we ban everything that uses energy and is unnecessary for achieving our climate goals? Video games? Banned. Alcohol? Banned. Driving? Banned. Exercise? Banned - it increases your daily caloric needs. Food? Why would you need food? Eat your government rations. Why should we prefer some activities over others by government decree? Have we not learned from the past? Oh, you're growing the wrong kind of plant? To jail! Oh, you're doing the wrong kinds of calculations? To jail!