6 ms·
The reason an industrial use uses x times more than a consumer is because the industry is selling products and services to x consumers. You can't compare them
by appreciatorBus 2mo ago
The reason an industrial use uses x times more than a consumer is because the industry is selling products and services to x consumers. You can't compare them 1:1.
- skeaker 2mo agoExactly, you can't compare them and they should therefore be treated differently.
- bix6 2mo agoWell the industrial should charge more to cover its costs instead of offloading the cost of its goods to consumers? Why does Walmart get to utilize food stamps or hyperscalers get to drain all the energy? Thats a massive public subsidy for a private corporation.
- inigyou 2mo agoIn the end the consumer pays. Why should the consumer pay tax on the fossil fuels used to bring them AI but not on the fossil fuels used to bring them to work? That's the inconsistency.
- bix6 2mo agoIs gas not taxed or am I missing something?
- appreciatorBus 2mo agoYes it is but there are 2 items at issue: - if we are concerned about environmental externalities (as we should be IMO) then we have to ask if current taxes were designed to price those externalities or if they were just designed to pay off infrastructure. As far as I understand, it's the latter, so if we want to ensure polluters pay, whether they operate an AI data center or an Acura, we might need to charge more. Importantly this need not be tax - it can just be something immediately refunded to all citizens, so you end up with a scenario where people who use a lot are paying people who use little. - the original poster seemed to feel that some gas consumers should pay much more than others. If we do policy based on vibes, this makes sense. Big = bad vibes = pay more. But IMO vibes are a very bad basis for good policy and will just make things worse.
- fragmede 2mo agoIt's not vibes if you use numbers. Have the first 10 kWh be free, the next 100 are charged at $0.10/hr, the next 1000 at $0.20/hr and go up from there. (Whatever numbers actually make sense.) If the factory only uses a house's worth of electricity, they pay the same rate. If a house uses a factory's worth of electricity, they also pay the same rate as the factory would.
- appreciatorBus 2mo agoWhat is the factory exists to serve 10,000 houses? To be clear, I think you’ve got the right direction – free stuff for humans up to a point and then market rate for everyone/everything after that. I just think it’s silly to pretend that companies are polluting for shits and giggles. They’re polluting for us. I think that pricing pollution is the right way to go, I just know that the outcome isn’t going to be some magical world where companies pay for pollution but consumer don’t. The only way it works is that the costs get passed on and the consumer pays.
- bix6 2mo agoThey’re not polluting for us they are polluting to make money for shareholders. People buying stuff is just a necessary step (sometimes) to make that happen.
- appreciatorBus 2mo agoA nonprofit, co-op, or government entity, serving the same customer the same product would produce an identical amount of pollution as the for-profit factory.
- bix6 2mo agoNot true. The non profit might add a screen to catch pollution before it hits the waterway.