4 ms·

What about electronic negative environmental externalities? It requires a while network of internet (backbones, cables, satellites, telecoms) and constant elect

What about electronic negative environmental externalities? It requires a while network of internet (backbones, cables, satellites, telecoms) and constant electricity generation to feed it, creation of credit cards, etc. This all seems to have a significantly greater effect than the creation of a new physical bill that lasts 6-10 years.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
The communications equipment is obviously already there, and not going anywhere due to the utility of the internet. The externality of using the communication equipment for payments is negligible.
sbuttgereit 3y ago
This feels much more like a rationalization rather than a thought out argument. Let's pause to think about this. - Cash and electronic payments both are accounted for in pretty much the same way; there are some differences when you zoom in enough, but in terms of energy consumption not materially different: both are accounted for using computers and the same mechanisms are used in communicating results. - Electronic payment mechanisms use electronic terminals to collect payment, but cash (mid-20 century onward) uses electrically driven devices such as cash drawers or data entry terminals to track. We won't get into retail cash office details too much other than to say that for our purposes cash is either break-even in terms of energy consumption vs. pure electronic payment (though really cash is probably at a slight disadvantage since there other devices are often at play). -- Transfers of capital between banks and banks, and banks and reserve banks, are typically all electronic, though cash will need additional transport steps which will consume additional energy to the mere communication of transactions which all payment types require. We still could consider this break-even. -- Bank to retailer and retailer to bank conveyances are where I expect electronic payments to dominate in the energy efficiency contest. Retailers need to carry a minimum cash on hand for making change in transactions (we'll mostly ignore crime related externalities for this discussion). When the retailer falls below their minimum cash on hand, they need to have cash physically delivered. Retailers also, because of crime issues, need to clear the excess cash out of the store quickly as well, another physical transfer. This often means big abnormally heavy trucks prowling around city streets; in fact you might draw some inverse relationship to the energy efficiency of the transport mode to the suitability of its use in transferring cash. But remember that any physical transfer of tangible cash is also backed by an electronic transaction accounting for the transfer. And I think that last point hits the biggest error in your reply. Cash transactions may supplant some electronic transactions, but do so with physical movements which also consume energy... and unless your prepared to say moving a kilobyte or two across town over a wire is less efficient than moving that same cash across town in a big truck my guess is you might agree that electronic payments will tend to be more energy efficient... and remember even with the physical move you probably don't save the electronic transaction anyway because of accounting needs: you just change its nature.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

The communications equipment is obviously already there, and not going anywhere due to the utility of the internet. The externality of using the communication equipment for payments is negligible.

sbuttgereit 3y ago

This feels much more like a rationalization rather than a thought out argument. Let's pause to think about this. - Cash and electronic payments both are accounted for in pretty much the same way; there are some differences when you zoom in enough, but in terms of energy consumption not materially different: both are accounted for using computers and the same mechanisms are used in communicating results. - Electronic payment mechanisms use electronic terminals to collect payment, but cash (mid-20 century onward) uses electrically driven devices such as cash drawers or data entry terminals to track. We won't get into retail cash office details too much other than to say that for our purposes cash is either break-even in terms of energy consumption vs. pure electronic payment (though really cash is probably at a slight disadvantage since there other devices are often at play). -- Transfers of capital between banks and banks, and banks and reserve banks, are typically all electronic, though cash will need additional transport steps which will consume additional energy to the mere communication of transactions which all payment types require. We still could consider this break-even. -- Bank to retailer and retailer to bank conveyances are where I expect electronic payments to dominate in the energy efficiency contest. Retailers need to carry a minimum cash on hand for making change in transactions (we'll mostly ignore crime related externalities for this discussion). When the retailer falls below their minimum cash on hand, they need to have cash physically delivered. Retailers also, because of crime issues, need to clear the excess cash out of the store quickly as well, another physical transfer. This often means big abnormally heavy trucks prowling around city streets; in fact you might draw some inverse relationship to the energy efficiency of the transport mode to the suitability of its use in transferring cash. But remember that any physical transfer of tangible cash is also backed by an electronic transaction accounting for the transfer. And I think that last point hits the biggest error in your reply. Cash transactions may supplant some electronic transactions, but do so with physical movements which also consume energy... and unless your prepared to say moving a kilobyte or two across town over a wire is less efficient than moving that same cash across town in a big truck my guess is you might agree that electronic payments will tend to be more energy efficient... and remember even with the physical move you probably don't save the electronic transaction anyway because of accounting needs: you just change its nature.