4 ms·

There’s nothing specific to data centers here, just electricity use. The electricity use generates a shit load of GDP and soft power for the U.S., way more than

by oefrha 2y ago

There’s nothing specific to data centers here, just electricity use. The electricity use generates a shit load of GDP and soft power for the U.S., way more than $5.4B over 5 years. So what do these degrowth people want exactly? Cant have resource extraction. Can’t have manufacturing, pollution. Can’t have tech, pollution. Just twiddling thumbs and money will come? Or keep all the benefits while offloading all the downsides to Mexico? And a few years later they will complain about dependence on foreign countries.

CrimsonRain 2y ago
They are the people who think only one move in chess. I hope this answers your question.
myrmidon 2y ago
> So what do these degrowth people want exactly? Cant have resource extraction. Can’t have manufacturing, pollution. Can’t have tech, pollution. Just twiddling thumbs and money will come? Or keep all the benefits while offloading all the downsides to Mexico? And a few years later they will complain about dependence on foreign countries. It feels like you're arguing against a strawman. I can only speak for myself, but I would like CO2 emissions to be taxed appropriately, so that fossil fuel producers and consumers actually pay a somewhat proper price for the damage that they cause (negative externalities). Sure, that might slow growth, but I see so evidence that this difference in growth has much of a negative effect on US citizens: How much GDP growth do you think we actually need as a nation to stay satisfied? Double our GDP every 20 years? More? Less? Because I know that I would trade a good fraction of my "growth boosted" past and present wage in exchange for climate change already being solved (and be happier as a result). PS: I would also like to point out that any significant constant rate of growth is inherently unsustainable by definition; as a species, we need to arrange ourself with the fact that we'll be unable to continue growing our energy consumption exponentially-- the sooner, the better.
- oefrha 2y ago
  Article is about health impact and explicitly not about carbon emissions. It also strongly implies “we don’t want you to pay, we simply don’t want you here”. You can’t accuse me of arguing against a strawman when I’m addressing the article while you’re bringing in something else only loosely in the same category.
  - myrmidon 2y ago
    > Article is about health impact and explicitly not about carbon emissions. Yes. But air pollution is a negative externality that is not priced in for polluters/consumers, in exactly the same way as CO2. You could argue that the case with air pollution is even more straightforward than with CO2, because those damages and costs are fully shouldered by the local population (unlike the consequences of climate change, which is probably gonna be felt more acutely in countries like Bangladesh, and thus less of a problem from a US citizens PoV-- note that this is not an argument I endorse). > It also strongly implies “we don’t want you to pay, we simply don’t want you here”. This feels like conjecture to me. The message of the article to me was "Tech giants operate data centers for hundreds of billions, but they are not paying for the consequences of their emissions which are mainly felt locally (costing billions)". That is not "we don't want you here" to me, but instead a "you should be responsible for the consequences of your actions". I'm not exactly sure what your actual positions is. Are you arguing that industries/consumers should be exempt from paying the actual price for things (including external costs), because this (indirectly) subsidises local industry? And where do you draw the line? Because surely "the local gold extraction industry may freely pollute rivers with mercury" is across that line?

by oefrha 2y ago

CrimsonRain 2y ago

They are the people who think only one move in chess. I hope this answers your question.

myrmidon 2y ago

> So what do these degrowth people want exactly? Cant have resource extraction. Can’t have manufacturing, pollution. Can’t have tech, pollution. Just twiddling thumbs and money will come? Or keep all the benefits while offloading all the downsides to Mexico? And a few years later they will complain about dependence on foreign countries. It feels like you're arguing against a strawman. I can only speak for myself, but I would like CO2 emissions to be taxed appropriately, so that fossil fuel producers and consumers actually pay a somewhat proper price for the damage that they cause (negative externalities). Sure, that might slow growth, but I see so evidence that this difference in growth has much of a negative effect on US citizens: How much GDP growth do you think we actually need as a nation to stay satisfied? Double our GDP every 20 years? More? Less? Because I know that I would trade a good fraction of my "growth boosted" past and present wage in exchange for climate change already being solved (and be happier as a result). PS: I would also like to point out that any significant constant rate of growth is inherently unsustainable by definition; as a species, we need to arrange ourself with the fact that we'll be unable to continue growing our energy consumption exponentially-- the sooner, the better.

oefrha 2y ago
Article is about health impact and explicitly not about carbon emissions. It also strongly implies “we don’t want you to pay, we simply don’t want you here”. You can’t accuse me of arguing against a strawman when I’m addressing the article while you’re bringing in something else only loosely in the same category.
- myrmidon 2y ago
  > Article is about health impact and explicitly not about carbon emissions. Yes. But air pollution is a negative externality that is not priced in for polluters/consumers, in exactly the same way as CO2. You could argue that the case with air pollution is even more straightforward than with CO2, because those damages and costs are fully shouldered by the local population (unlike the consequences of climate change, which is probably gonna be felt more acutely in countries like Bangladesh, and thus less of a problem from a US citizens PoV-- note that this is not an argument I endorse). > It also strongly implies “we don’t want you to pay, we simply don’t want you here”. This feels like conjecture to me. The message of the article to me was "Tech giants operate data centers for hundreds of billions, but they are not paying for the consequences of their emissions which are mainly felt locally (costing billions)". That is not "we don't want you here" to me, but instead a "you should be responsible for the consequences of your actions". I'm not exactly sure what your actual positions is. Are you arguing that industries/consumers should be exempt from paying the actual price for things (including external costs), because this (indirectly) subsidises local industry? And where do you draw the line? Because surely "the local gold extraction industry may freely pollute rivers with mercury" is across that line?