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?