385
submitted 1 year ago by misk@sopuli.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Trev625@lemm.ee 37 points 1 year ago

This is dumb but only because we don't worry about energy use any other time. Tons of places in my city keep all their lights on 24/7 unnecessarily, we all are sitting on a "useless" social media, video games and movies and music are all energy uses. I don't want the government to start limiting energy use on things it deems unimportant. Who gets to decide what counts? Just implement a carbon tax and energy use will go down if people don't want to pay. We don't need to police everyone's usage, we just need the cost to actually reflect the externalities.

[-] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

We could just solve the problem the capitalist way and just charge businesses extra for their power usage. That'll get them to care.

[-] Leeker@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Currently at least in the US we charge them less. This is usually due to something called Economy of Scale. As well as the fact there is more competition for Business energy. As well as the fact they are usually locked into a contract for energy. 1

[-] Pantherina@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago

So true. These fu**ing schools keeping their lights on the whole night and vacations, with their old lamps, while people like me measure their lamps and turn everything off...

Also the amount of 4K or more useless data transfer, ads, unnecessary youtube videos where there could be only audio (if they made that free, you can use any FOSS client and do the same)

[-] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

With Carbon tax only the rich win, we need carbon credits

[-] rusticus@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

No it’s really really easily to implement taxation that’s not regressive.

[-] Silentiea@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

A progressive tax that means the biggest users pay the most would probably be ideal (but then that's mostly true in every situation)

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Why is it not that way already?

[-] Silentiea@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Because it would affect rich folks more, so they spend some money now to convince lawmakers not to charge them more later.

[-] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

So it's not so easy to implement after all

[-] Silentiea@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Did I say easy? I think I said ideal.

[-] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How comes I never saw that implemented, then? Progressive taxation stops "progressing" at around the 100k threshold and that's basically just a decent salary. The Rich are never really affected by it.

Carbon credits would be a way to level the ground in some situations and could give you a right to say NO to people consuming more than their share, or at least account for externalities and get paid if you allow them to use your "quota".

this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
385 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

73370 readers
3886 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS