[abirch]

It's similar to the people who block roadways to protest climate change. Usually it makes the commuters frustrated and doesn't change anything.

Personally I think data centers should pay a 100% fossil fuel tax. Markets respond to incentives.

[marcosdumay]

> and doesn't change anything

It does change people that don't know about your cause against it, quite reliably as long as activism results go.

For climate change, everybody probably heard about it, so yeah.

[inigyou]

"there's no such thing as bad publicity" once again.

[IAmBroom]

If ever true, it's for brand recognition.

PETA's brand recognition has probably made more people anti-vegan than all other vegans put together.

[marcosdumay]

There is pretty much bad publicity. But for causes it seems to only impact the ones you don't know about.

[plufz]

I think XR would prefer your solution as well. Still I can understand young people’s frustration when we after years and years of knowing about climate change do so little and so few laws of this type are enacted.

But I agree that their strategy is lacking. It would probably be easier to get people in general to support it if it didn’t affect them directly, sadly.

[abirch]

I understand why people are frustrated with the current system in general. You wouldn't design it this way. We need more young politicians shaping the laws and more entrepreneurs improving society.

[inigyou]

That can't happen, because political positions are basically hereditary. Do you know what happened to every other hereditary political system?

[AnimalMuppet]

I call baloney. What percentage of the US Congress and governors, say, are people whose parents were in Congress and/or governors? I have no hard data, but my gut feel is less than 25%. That's basically not hereditary.

Anyone with hard data, step right up...

[scarecrowbob]

I get that it's a single case, but Darlene Graham did just take Lindsey Graham's spot, like, yesterday.

[inigyou]

not literally parent-child hereditary but I mean the political class decides who succeeds itself

[appreciatorBus]

I think fossil fuel taxes are a great idea, but if one consumer, data centers, should pay it, shouldn't all consumers (private car owners) pay it too? That's the only way we'll be able to make good decisions about what types of fossil fuels are useful (i.e. more good than harm) and which are pointless luxuries.

[bix6]

No. Industrial vs consumer use is night and day. Industrial has much higher draw of resources and should pay more as a result especially when total capacity needs to increase specifically for them.

[appreciatorBus]

The reason an industrial use uses x times more than a consumer is because the industry is selling products and services to x consumers. You can't compare them 1:1.

[bix6]

Well the industrial should charge more to cover its costs instead of offloading the cost of its goods to consumers? Why does Walmart get to utilize food stamps or hyperscalers get to drain all the energy? Thats a massive public subsidy for a private corporation.

[inigyou]

In the end the consumer pays. Why should the consumer pay tax on the fossil fuels used to bring them AI but not on the fossil fuels used to bring them to work? That's the inconsistency.

[bix6]

Is gas not taxed or am I missing something?

[skeaker]

Exactly, you can't compare them and they should therefore be treated differently.

[bix6]

Data centers should just pay anything really. They get massive tax breaks, eat up huge swathes of industrial zoned land, and piss off anyone nearby. And for what? 3 permanent jobs and a penny worth of tax revenue.

[ourmandave]

I was going to say 4 permanent jobs, because they have to hire a security guard.

But they'll just use AI powered flock cameras instead, so never mind.