6 ms·
A lot of us live in a country where "rolling coal" is a thing. I fear your prompt may have an opposite of the intended effect.
by yongjik 1y ago
A lot of us live in a country where "rolling coal" is a thing. I fear your prompt may have an opposite of the intended effect.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y agoTaxing anything that can pollute (methane, gasoline, diesel) would let The Hand sort it out
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- freeone3000 1y agoCarbon taxes are incredibly unpopular, because it makes easy and convenient things expensive.
- triceratops 1y agoThey're incredibly unpopular because even when they're made revenue-neutral (meaning, everyone gets a refund check) people don't realize most of them would make money if they actually reduced their carbon.
- KennyBlanken 1y agoThey're incredibly unpopular because the ultraweathly use massive amounts of fossil fuels and thus lobby very, very hard against them...and make sure the public is often told just how evil they are and how expensive they'd hurt Johnny Everyday Worker, even car ownership, especially in a city (where much of the US populative lives) is not affordable to a large segment of the population. If memory serves Jet A is not taxed at all federally in the case of for-profit corporations (while non-commercial users DO pay a tax!) and many states also either do not tax it or tax it very litte. It's completely insane that we do not tax fuel usage for probably the most energy-intensive way to move people and/or goods and often that movement of people is entirely frivelous.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago> They're incredibly unpopular because the ultraweathly use massive amounts of fossil fuels and thus lobby very, very hard against them...and make sure the public is often told just how evil they are and how expensive they'd hurt Johnny Everyday Worker, even car ownership, especially in a city (where much of the US populative lives) is not affordable to a large segment of the population. Eh. It's not Bill Gates and Alice Walton. Sometimes the obvious answer is the real one: It's the fossil fuel industry. > It's completely insane that we do not tax fuel usage for probably the most energy-intensive way to move people and/or goods and often that movement of people is entirely frivelous. That one's just the arbitrage problem. Planes move around. If there is an international flight to a country that doesn't tax jet fuel (or taxes it less) then the plane is going to fly into LAX with enough fuel still in the tank to get back to the other jurisdiction and fill up again. Which actually increases fuel consumption because fuel is heavy and they otherwise wouldn't want to do that. This is the same reason the EU doesn't tax jet fuel.
- triceratops 1y ago> the plane is going to fly into LAX with enough fuel still in the tank to get back Any reason that can't be treated as a fuel import and taxed accordingly? I understand current laws may not allow it but is that legislation impossible to write?
- navane 1y agoUsage tax is impopulaire because usage taxes are regressive. Joe driving to work spends a larger fraction of his income on fuel and thus fuel tax than his rich counterpart. This is true for all "let the consumer/poluter pay" taxes, they're all regressive. They say: it's fine to burn up the world as long as you're rich.
- WillDaSilva 1y agoAssuming the tax is high enough (or grows over time to become high enough) to offset the negative externalities, and that the money raised is used to offset negative externalities, they're better phrase not as "it's fine to burn up the world as long as you're rich", but rather as "it's fine to emit CO2 as long as you sufficiently offset the damage". Accounting for the damage could involve investments into green technologies, or paying ordinary people to make the tax popular, among other things. Personally I like the idea of setting the price for emitting 1 ton of CO2 equivalent emissions to the realistic cost of capturing 1 ton of CO2. At least, that seems like a reasonable end goal for a carbon tax, since that could fully account for the negative externality. This would of course be obscenely expensive, which would be a strong incentive to lower carbon emissions where possible, and for people to consume less of products that require large emissions to make or use. The carbon tax would also have to apply to imported goods to be effective, and tracking how much tax should apply to imports would be even more difficult than doing so for domestic sources of pollution.
- teekert 1y agoAnd will probably not affect Taylor Swift in the slightest.
- ZeroGravitas 1y agoThe irony is that carbon taxes don't really affect anyone that much. Even flying would only cost about 10% more for example. And most other activities have carbon free alternatives they can shift to rather than just eat the cost. Which is kind of the point.
- triceratops 1y agoIf Taylor Swift's private jet generates a few dollars more in rebates for everyone else, fine.
- conradev 1y agoI don’t think “convenient” is fair. Are solar panels convenient? All polysilicon today is made with fossil fuels, and the R&D to make it with renewable energy is still in-progress. Not to mention that we ship them across the ocean with fossil fuel.
- HPsquared 1y agoThe main process for polysilicon manufacturing (Siemens process) uses electricity. That doesn't need fossil fuels.
- conradev 1y agoThe step before to reduce the silicon dioxide requires carbon, which is where the fossil fuels come in. Same thing with steel – both are critical input materials and can be made without fossil fuels, but they aren’t today. Maybe a carbon tax would fix that!
- ZeroGravitas 1y agoThey're not actually unpopular. They've been implemented all over the world, because they're effective. They cover 31% of emissions in developed nations. To whatever degree you could say they are unpopular, they're unpopular in regions where the government doing stuff about climate change (or just "the government doing stuff") is unpopular, which makes it odd to single out putting a price on carbon specifically See where they are used here: https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/ https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/
- wat10000 1y agoYou mean, they expose the true cost of those things and make the user pay them. They’re already expensive, the cost is just diffused. That’s the whole problem.
- FollowingTheDao 1y agoNo, they are unpopular because they are a regressive tax effect the poor, which are now the majority of the U.S. population.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- UnreachableCode 1y agoYou say that as if rolling coal people are capable of using or understanding LLMs
- lvturner 1y agoWhile I might question their sanity and/or ethics, it's generally not a good idea to underestimate a fool.
- bravetraveler 1y agoYou say that as if LLMs aren't another dumbing-down interface.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- GuB-42 1y agoNot sure about understanding, but anyone can use a LLM. That is the most intuitive way to interact with a computer and that's the entire point. It may even work on animals. There is serious research on how LLMs could interpret animal language, like with dolphins.
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago> It may even work on animals. There is serious research on how LLMs could interpret animal language, like with dolphins. This is one of the more hysterical things I have heard. How would we even know it was translating animal language correctly?
- haiku2077 1y agoHere, read the blog post. The LLM isn't running inside of a blackbox, it's a tool used as part of behavioral research with real animals https://blog.google/technology/ai/dolphingemma/ https://blog.google/technology/ai/dolphingemma/
- wat10000 1y ago
- nightski 1y agoHow does it make you feel that your computing carbon footprint may be higher than rolling coal? Are we the problem?
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago> Are we the problem? Yes.
- rcpt 1y agoHow did you get those numbers? Based on the article and my searching around Llama 3.1: ~0.7 to 1.5 grams of CO2 Rolling coal event: ~10,000 to 100,000+ grams of CO2
- kroogman 1y agoYou think rolling coal releases 10 - 100 kg (20 - 200 lb) of CO2 into the atmosphere? You would need hundreds of lb of gasoline for that!
- fisherjeff 1y agoThat'd actually only be about 1-10 gallons, or about 6-60 pounds. Regardless, I'd guess it's probably only <500g CO2.
- olddustytrail 1y agoWho is "we"? I had to look up this moronic activity because I'm not American. I refuse to believe that anyone with a functioning brain would choose to engage in it. Are you saying you do?