Topic: Bitcoin's huge carbon footprint - deal breaker (Read 339 times)

I think you will end up with a massive BTC print on your face, just like all the skeptics who kept rehashing the same nonsense since 2013.

Build a bunker, make sure you have the best filter and ventilation system available, and prep as much canned food as you can to survive at least the coming 5 years. Don't forget to hold some of this carbon footprint spewer coin so you will at least be able to keep seeing your wealth increase as the world goes under.

Hah...Bitcoin is going to kill us all.

Not the 100 of years of car emissions that have caused global warming.   Ok there RawDog.
Once alternatives becomes cheap enough you will see massive solar farms, wind farms and hydro power the bitcoin network.

Stop with the FUD dude.

Thanks for the quote. 0.2%, being a liberal estimate, and ignoring the fact that recent studies are placing around 75% of bitcoin mining as using renewable energy, means that a tiny fraction of global CO₂ emissions are due to bitcoin. Interestingly, the study OP has linked to calculates an even lower global power consumption at 45.8 TWh, compared to my estimate of 51.5 TWh. So it's even less than we thought before.

The study OP linked is flawed at how it converts global electricity usage to carbon dioxide generation:

As we know, bitcoin mining does not use the "average" energy source or produce the "average" emissions. Much of it is entirely renewable, and much of it uses excess energy which would otherwise be wasted. This calculation is far too simplistic. Still, even assuming that their number of 22 megatons of CO₂ annually was correct (it isn't), the beef consumption (note not all meat, just beef) of the average American generates 1.4 tons of CO₂ annually. So the beef consumption of 5% of the US generates more CO₂ than their gross overestimation of the entire bitcoin network. Not meat, not globally. Just beef, just 5% of the US.

To suggest that the CO₂ generated by bitcoin is going to "kill us all", when it is utterly dwarfed by any other industry such as meat, farming, transport, etc., is laughable.

Some points have gone amiss on the said article, and I wouldn't buy that really. Again, a significant number of mining farms are located and China, most of which are perusing hydroelectric power that contributes to carbon emissions by little to none. Anyway, if most really are environmentalists in here then why wouldn't anyone propose a carbon sink in line with lowering CO2 emissions? The problem here is not regarding environment really, because if it is then governments would not allow developers to buy mountainous lands with lots of trees only to be converted into industrialized areas which then produces CO2 because fuck the earth, right?

Or better, why not electric companies harness renewables? Oh right, burning coal and fossil fuels has always been cheaper and produces more profit.

there is something that we need to separate or I do not understand

The pollution that they are talking about has to do with bitcoin mining?

or

The pollution they are talking about has to do with electricity companies that offer electricity to the miners?


are two different things!

At the end of the article they say the following:


it seems to me that they are talking about the electricity companies

This is really a very good post based on even better article, and together they create one big delusion that bitcoin is problem for the environment, and in the same time OP or article author does not even try to find out who actually contributes to the pollution of this planet.

Even if it is true that bitcoin is using 1% of of total world energy, the fact is that the largest mining farm are located in China, and that most of them use hydro power. About what carbon print we are talking here?

This should be posted in sticky so we can avoid such stupid claims.

Lol! Mints worldwide are emitting way more electricity that bitcoin consumes. Why should we need physical money after all? If these is your perspective of bitcoin mining, then you should start with mints worldwide. Carbon emission is indeed a challenge which world leaders need to address at some point of time! But targetting Bitcoin mining for that, is not going to help at all!

On the flipside, it is much easier for miners to switch from conventional energy source to alternative source! But it is not possible for big factories to rely on alternate source due to their high consumption!

BTW, do you think thermal power generation process does any less harm to the nature??

Something to consider, carbon footprint only applies if you assume the power generation method is carbon emitting. Driving an electric car is carbon emitting if the generation station providing the electricity is coal powered. Its a deal breaker to continue burning fossil fuels for a substantial amount of power, regardless of whether its for Bitcoin or your microwave.

I'm not a power hippie, but my point is that its an inherent problem of power production, not Bitcoin.



The goal of Bitcoin mining is network security, not the block reward.

I think there's another point you've missed. Not all of the energy Bitcoin consumes can be produced with a carbon footprint. In other words, renewable energy sources are helping the mining sector. In addition, as I have seen from the comparisons, the oil used by the vehicles is compared to the Bitcoin mining. Shouldn't we include the physical problems given to the world by petroleum products issued for driving?

Almost all industries are consuming power and then all of us are releasing pollution to the Earth. There is no question that bitcoin mining requires a big amount of electricity but blaming bitcoin alone is not fair. There are more industries which can be considered as virtually worthless...why don't we start to list unnecessary industries or businesses and maybe restrict their use of power? Of course, that would be insane. However, I do strongly agree that we need to study, search and come up with solutions and I think some can be forthcoming with more efficient technologies applied to bitcoin mining.

Yep. Energy consumption is such a non argument that it actually surprises me that people still use it to attack Bitcoin. It's not that what we are going through is new or anything.

It was known from the early days of Bitcoin that mining would become a huge thing the higher the price goes up. If you supported Bitcoin back then but blame it right now for damaging the environment you're just a hypocrite.

As more time goes by, the use of energy per hardware device will go down without losing efficiency. It's called progress. Whatever the environmental impact is of Bitcoin, it won't keep growing but slowly decrease over time.

The last time he used his account was back in February of 2018. I think he's gone.

"Bitcoin" is not the name of a power company that is burning fossil fuel releasing pollution in the air. bitcoin is the name of the currency that is mined with miners that use the electricity that the power companies provide them.
it is not in control of bitcoin where that power comes from and how these electric companies pollute the environment. if you are such a lover of environment then go to these big billion dollar worth power companies and complain why they are doing that.