boing.world is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A gateway into the global open conversation in the fediverse, for Boing folks and anyone they know. If you're friends with someone here, or the event, or were at the fabled old place, come join us.

Administered by:

Server stats:

4
active users

In the Other Place, Richard Murphy says ( nitter.net/RichardJMurphy/stat ):

"It’s estimated that we’ll paying £38 billion more for energy in the next year but the cost of producing that energy is hardly going to change. So the question is, who is profiting, and what is the government going to do about it, because this is nothing more than exploitation?"

I suggest that the price signal is important, and if the capitalists are right should not be suppressed.

Are they right?

If the capitalists are right, then we should find ways to signal to the market that fossil-fuel based energy is a bad return on investment.

Most obviously by incrementally taxing it so that it isn't profitable any more.

We could go further, guaranteeing a minimum energy price to any energy producer, along with that tax on carbon-burning.

That only works if we tax the unsustainable forms of energy, while war-footing emergency-invest in building a global giga-scale green-energy supply.

I note that gives us that energy subsidy.

But also that we don't have that differential energy-tax which ensures our growing global energy demands are met sustainability.

We will need the energy with or without bitcoin, but it can subsidize our energy network while we quit coal.

The coal is all gonna get burned.

Unless we can subsidize the alternatives so much that burning it is pointless.

NitterRichard Murphy (@RichardJMurphy)It’s estimated that we’ll paying £38 billion more for energy in the next year but the cost of producing that energy is hardly going to change. So the question is, who is profiting, and what is the government going to do about it, because this is nothing more than exploitation?