kenpomeroy

> free market

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Fossil fuel companies receive subsidies as well, what's your point?

I said Tesla was perhaps "a" solution, not "the" solution. What alternative solutions do you propose?

Even still, you're assuming the government has the ability to address climate change if given the chance. But, there would need to be global consensus and enforcement or government intervention could actually make the problem worse (e.g. heavy environmental regulatory burden means products get manufactured and shipped from Asia, and actually generate more carbon emissions).

Perhaps, free market solutions a la Tesla are all we've got?

If the government were mandating people behave a certain way, that would be an entirely different discussion. We're talking about a service that people can choose to use or not use. If they want to use it, they have to comply with the standards set by the service provider...

They quite literally are being judged by a jury of their peers... that is kind of my whole point.

I struggle to see how anything you described could be categorized as "Orwellian"... Why are we concerned about "problem users" being left with no options? Just act like a normal human and you won't be a problem user... What is "Orwellian" about free markets and voluntary exchange?

I did read the actual legislation.

1. Sign lease for apartment in VT.

2. Lease deposit + new computer products = "qualified remote worker expenses".

3. Receive grant funds.

4. Resell computer products and never move to VT.

5. Put apartment on AirBNB.

6. Profit.

Some jobs generate less value for businesses than the arbitrary amount you deem to be a "livable wage." That's economics.

Because economics

> I can think of one.... not being used at all!

You seem to be missing my entire point. There is nothing bad about consuming clean, renewable energy.

You assume that a substantial portion of bitcoins are being mined in populated areas where the energy would otherwise be used for what you deem "better" purposes. How do you reach this conclusion?

The article does not make any effort to investigate the location of bitcoin mining facilities or sources of energy being used. For all we know, 99% of bitcoins may be mined using sustainable energy, off the grid. Without this information, any estimation of raw energy consumption is meaningless.

If there's nothing inherently bad about energy consumption, why do you think it is an "issue" for 0.5% of the world's consumption to be used for mining bitcoin? What if 100% of bitcoin mining is powered by renewables?

Not sure why this is relevant unless you think 100% of bitcoin mining takes place in the US.

There's nothing inherently bad about energy consumption. The raw amount of energy consumed is a useless metric without determining how much of this energy is derived from clean/renewable sources.

You can't wait for retail investors to be slaughtered?

> It's well-known that deflationary currencies do not work.

This is laughable. Your definition of "work" includes a presumption that we all want the government to control and manipulate the economy without regard for the interests of the individual.

Ask any individual citizen whether they would prefer that their savings increased in value or decreased in value, and I suspect they'll have a different answer as to whether a deflationary currency "works" for their purposes.

For cryptocurrency fans, it is quite obvious that such a system would not be desirable or beneficial at all. The entire purpose of cryptocurrency is to remove governmental control of money.

Inflation hurts the poor far more than the rich. Rich people invest their money rather than simply holding cash and losing value through inflation. Poor people have no choice but to keep their money in cash. Also, wage increases are often much slower than the rate of inflation.

Not saying I disagree, because I think the bar association is a cartel and everyone should be "allowed" to practice law. However, the reason the CA bar is "notoriously hard" is precisely because they allow anyone to sit for it. If lots of unqualified people take an exam and fail, it causes the passage rate to drop and makes the exam appear "harder."

If I had a bitcoin for every time I facepalmed while I read this...

Of course Bitcoin's value is a function of its popularity - it is a network. Networks become more valuable (and more useful) the more popular they are.

It doesn't sound like you really understand how Bitcoin works. If Bitcoin were to become widely adopted and supplant traditional financial institutions, the environmental impact would be enormously net positive. Sure, it takes energy to confirm transactions. But, we could massively decrease energy consumption by eliminating the need for: bank buildings, armored vehicles, physically printing money, etc.

Why don't you just find a new job if you aren't happy with your company's employment conditions? Why resort to blanket government intervention instead of just addressing your concerns on an individual level?

You can't be serious... you are literally responding to someone who told you they use bitcoin more than credit card, and yet you still maintain that "No one legitimately uses Bitcoin as a form of currency."

You think all of us who use bitcoin to buy things are just lying?

People who save money for their families are "greedy hoarders"? I imagine in your eyes, then, people who want to take other people's money are somehow virtuous and charitable?

> “It would have been virtually impossible for this to have occurred without climate change.”

> “This isn’t just an environmental issue. The Great Barrier Reef is one of Australia’s greatest economic assets. It’s responsible for bringing in more than $7 billion each year to our economy, while also supporting the livelihoods of around 70,000 people.”

The irony is that in order for these tourists to visit, they have to fly overseas in planes creating significant carbon emissions.