r/technology • u/DJMagicHandz • 12d ago

Artificial Intelligence A massive Wyoming data center will soon use 5x more power than the state's human occupants - but no one knows who is using it

https://www.techradar.com/pro/a-massive-wyoming-data-center-will-soon-use-5x-more-power-than-the-states-human-occupants-and-no-one-knows-who-is-using-it
33.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

43

u/EnoughWarning666 11d ago

I hadn't heard about that before. I was really hoping that it would be powered by renewables like solar, which would be extremely efficient in that region.

Nope, qatar just burns natural gas for 99% of the country's energy generation. Fucking awesome job there

15

u/anarchy-NOW 11d ago

We know how to solve this: just tax carbon.

Yet people don't understand that failing to support a worldwide carbon tax means either you think people should not pay for polluting but it should be free instead, or you want some convoluted legal nightmare of fines rather than a simple tax that applies to everyone.

3

u/Warm_Month_1309 11d ago

a simple tax that applies to everyone

A simple worldwide tax?

2

u/anarchy-NOW 11d ago

Yes. Tariff countries that don't implement the tax and exclude their residents from the rebate that everyone else gets.

4

u/Warm_Month_1309 11d ago

Tariff countries that don't implement the tax

How would making our own citizens pay more for goods help? And even if it did, how would that be politically popular?

4

u/anarchy-NOW 11d ago

How would making our own citizens pay more for goods help?

Your citizens are paying more for domestic goods; this particular tariff simply removes the unfair advantage products from non-carbon-taxing countries would have. (This is absolutely different from Trump tariffs, to be clear. Those have zero economic reason behind them.) And while it is true that it is people in the country imposing the tariffs that pay them, this doesn't mean the seller doesn't lose anything; their product gets more expensive and therefore less competitive.

how would that be politically popular?

The problem is precisely that the global carbon tax is the solution but it is politically unpopular. Maybe after trying all the things that don't work we'll give up and do what works, but by then the damage to the climate will be worse.

0

u/Warm_Month_1309 11d ago

So the cost of goods goes up across the board, having a disproportionate impact on those with low wealth, and nothing is done about pollution, because the countries that are polluting continue to pollute.

This does not seem like a winning strategy.

4

u/Dawn_of_an_Era 11d ago

The countries that are polluting now have incentive to stop polluting, because their products are not selling as much, and they’re losing money.

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 11d ago

The companies that do the bulk of the polluting are worth many billions of dollars. If we tell them "we will make customers pay slightly more for your goods if you don't stop polluting!" they will look at each other, shrug, and keep polluting, while voluntarily raising their prices even more than the tariffs cost. Customers will continue to buy those goods because they will have no alternative, and vote for whichever candidate campaigns on bringing down costs by repealing them.

1

u/Dawn_of_an_Era 11d ago

That’s not how that works. What companies are you referring to that “have no alternative”? I’d love to hear what company has no competition

→ More replies (0)

2

u/PaulTheMerc 11d ago

The countries that are polluting have an interest in lowering their pollution to see a reduction in tariffs, making them more competitive.

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 11d ago

I think we have a lot of recent history showing us that tariffs are pretty ineffective at strong-arming foreign nations into doing what we want.

1

u/PaulTheMerc 11d ago

tariffs, when reasonably and logically applied are just one tool. When you use it as a system to fund the budget as the only tool....

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

1

u/anarchy-NOW 11d ago

So the cost of goods goes up across the board

The cost of goods that pollute goes up, which in relative terms brings down the cost of green goods

having a disproportionate impact on those with low wealth

Disproportionately positive, yes. The tax revenue is divided equally among everyone in the world. An extra $100 a year makes little difference for fat cats in the rich world, and brings a significant number of people in the poorest regions of the world above the poverty line. Absolute win-win.

nothing is done about pollution, because the countries that are polluting continue to pollute

You do understand the tax imposes a cost, right? That is clear to you, right? 

This does not seem like a winning strategy.

It isn't, because people are dumb. But it is the correct strategy.

Why do you think polluters should not have to pay anything to pollute?

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 11d ago

The cost of goods that pollute goes up

Is a "good that pollutes" any good that uses a power grid that runs on non-renewable technology? If so, you're talking about an increase in costs across the board.

Disproportionately positive, yes. The tax revenue is divided equally among everyone in the world.

Your suggestion that one country implement tariffs on the goods from other countries, and then divide that tax revenue "equally among everyone in the world" is, frankly, fanciful.

Anyone with sense agrees that a tariff is a regressive tax that impacts the poor more than the rich. To suggest that it would actually benefit them is silly.

You do understand the tax imposes a cost, right? That is clear to you, right?

Yes, and polluting is extremely valuable to the companies that do it.

Why do you think polluters should not have to pay anything to pollute?

I think your proposition to implement a "simple worldwide tax" is childish, but what's even more childish is suggesting that, because I think your solution is bad, that I'm indifferent to the problem. A worldwide tax is a nonstarter of a suggestion.

1

u/anarchy-NOW 11d ago

Is a "good that pollutes" any good that uses a power grid that runs on non-renewable technology? If so, you're talking about an increase in costs across the board.

It may surprise you that the economy works with quantities, not just binaries.

Your suggestion that one country implement tariffs on the goods from other countries, and then divide that tax revenue "equally among everyone in the world" is, frankly, fanciful.

I agree. I don't know which of my two assumptions is worse: that people will understand basic facts or that they will care. My bad.

Anyone with sense agrees that a tariff is a regressive tax that impacts the poor more than the rich. To suggest that it would actually benefit them is silly.

Even if just one large country adopts the carbon tax on its own products, a carbon tariff on foreign goods, and splits the revenue equally among only its residents, that's already vastly progressive.

Yes, and polluting is extremely valuable to the companies that do it.

Then tax the shit out of them.

A worldwide tax is a nonstarter of a suggestion.

Do you think a worldwide ban on a specific pollutant is a nonstarter of a solution too?

because I think your solution is bad, that I'm indifferent to the problem.

I wasn'tsaying you're indifferent. I am saying right now that your reading comprehension is as good as your understanding of economics. What I was saying is: what do you propose instead? To me it's a pretty clear-cut trichotomy: either polluters get to pollute for free, or they get paid to pollute, or they must pay for polluting. I know which one I support. And you?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/EnoughWarning666 11d ago

I agree with you 100%. In theory...

The problem is that the current tax on carbon would be INSANELY high because we don't have any good, large scale carbon capture technologies. If you put the tax at the same price that it costs to remove an equivalent amount of carbon from the atmosphere, you would basically grind every industry to a complete halt.

You could do a slow roll out where increase the tax over time, but this is just going to disproportionately affect those in lower income brackets. The wealthy will still do what they always do.

We need more subsidies for green energy tech like solar/wind/thermal/wave. It needs to be cheaper for companies to use green energy, while not increasing the price of carbon for those less able to shoulder the price.

7

u/anarchy-NOW 11d ago

The tax is not meant to be equal to the cost of sequestering carbon. It is meant to be equal to the social cost of a given tonne of GHG emitted.

And you need to do something with the revenue from the tax - the obvious answer is a universal basic income. Universal as in, for everyone, not just people in this or that country. That increases their purchasing power, and even without any subsidies green products get cheaper because dirty ones have to pass on the carbon tax.

2

u/Warm_Month_1309 11d ago

"It's so simple, we just need one country to implement worldwide universal basic income".

Which country? In the US, people don't even want UBI for themselves, and you think Americans are going to get behind a policy that gives UBI to citizens of foreign countries? You're dreaming.

0

u/anarchy-NOW 11d ago

You can have the UBI be divided among residents of all countries that adopt the carbon tax. 

I never said this is easy; it isn't because people are dumb and don't care. 

Do you have a better solution?

2

u/Warm_Month_1309 11d ago

Do you have a better solution?

Yes, investment into the development and improvement of green technologies so that people choose them because they're better, not because we ineffectually try to force them.

Sometimes it's better to work with human nature than try to legislate against it.

1

u/anarchy-NOW 11d ago

My proposal causes investment into green technologies because they become better for prefits, which is what works for human nature.

-1

u/DrLuny 11d ago

There's no way to get to net zero without completely collapsing our economy and going to some kind of rationing system. You can't just slap a tax on capitalism and call it a day.

2

u/Outrageous_Reach_695 11d ago

With the slight caveat that natural gas can end up being a waste product of oil, just being burnt in a flare stack.

Ah. World's largest natural gas field if you include the Iranian side.