Topic: Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument. - page 15. (Read 5036 times)

The simplest way of answering this accusation is to make the accuser understand how supply and demand works.
If someone pays a tomato farmer a lot of money to switch to lettuce he will do it.

Elon Musk saw a demand for electric cars so he converted a car factory into an electric car factory. If you feel like there's not enough green energy produced, there will be more because miners will pay for it.

The math underlying the mining algorithm is fairly simple, it can be performed on very basic devices, or even by hand:


Bitcoin Mining on an APPLE II Computer! Highly Impractical Other Devices? Poll!

Difficulty doesn't make the math harder but makes the target where you want to land on increasingly smaller.

In general, I think this problem is completely contrived. The question is raised about the consumption of energy when mining bitcoin, as if there is an acute problem in us. The use of solar panels can very quickly solve this problem, because the energy reserves of the sun are practically inexhaustible. In any case, you can oblige the miners to use the energy of the sun and wind.

Bitcoin is popular, the rate at which (unconfirmed) transactions are being made is much more than the actual capacity of the network in terms of the transactions that can be confirmed. Transaction volume is currently a technical limitations, by the concept of weight units and making it more popular will not help. So if you want to tackle the people trying to bash Bitcoin by drawing comparisons from carbon footprint per transactions, the argument would be to solve the transaction capacity problem instead. I'm sure the profitability of mining would increase with more fees or adoption?

Proving that Bitcoin's utility outweighs its cost is far more important than saying its environmental damage is unsubstantial.

It was Janet Yellen who first claimed that Bitcoin is an "inefficient" way of doing transactions. Then media restarted their fake news factory, to churn out articles such as this one:

https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/bitcoin-shocker-cryptos-rise-may-soon-leave-carbon-footprint-equivalent-to-size-of-londons-emissions/2215513/

Unfortunately, 90% of the world population doesn't have enough intelligence to understand these are plain lies. Take this statement for example:


First of all, the figure claimed by them is a lie. And secondly, Bitcoin is still in infancy and the number of transactions per year is still at a very low level. On average we have ~150 million Bitcoin transactions per year. Once BTC becomes more popular, there will be billions every month and that will not correspond to a rise in electricity consumption. Electricity consumption will remain the same, irrespective of the number of transactions.

the more difficult it is to mine and decode increasingly complex math, and requires quite expensive hardware. When the price of electricity in a certain area is high, automatic income will not be profitable. added with quality hardware is increasingly difficult to find. hardware mining efficiency because different hash power determines the speed offered. Therefore, we often use bitcoin mining calculators to calculate the amount of expenditure with the benefits obtained from each block or by using Cryptocompare it is quite optimal to use. and most importantly we have to pay attention to the graph of changes in mining difficulty, one of which is an increase in difficulty until 2021.

The essence of the whole story is that those whose actions make life on this planet worse every day suddenly become ardent advocates of the idea of preserving the environment. They find no problems anywhere else except in the mining of BTC, and what about the mining of ETH or some other coin - I personally have not seen anyone ever talk about it?

Even if it is scientifically substantiated that 99% of the energy for mining Bitcoin comes from renewable sources (one day), does anyone think that even that 1% would not be enough for Bitcoin haters to continue with the same agenda?

The problem is not how much Bitcoin actually consumes, the problem is in an idea that some people will never accept - they have already labeled us as criminals creating a parallel financial system, and now anyone who owns BTC will be labeled as someone responsible for destroying the planet.

I don't know if anyone remembers the woman who said that everyone who mines or owns a BTC should pay a special tax - maybe her idea isn't so unrealistic ...

It turns out that recently there have been new innovations about mining with wind and solar power sources, I found here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.56602987

This shows that the existence of mining continues to be in demand. however, this does not remove a high level of power boost from the consumption level of the Bitcoin network. Just imagine that China is massively carrying out a mining system with power saving from each power, they are able to minimize the damage.

and the rebuttal is very representative for us, of course it is not easy to break an argument which is quite exhausting

Perhaps. It could've had a domino effect for all you know.

The energy that is wasted cannot possibly be sufficient to be able to outweigh the amount of electricity used by Bitcoin mining. You can also store excess energy in batteries or converting it back into GPE through a pump in the case of dams. Not too sure about the efficiency of long distance electricity transmission nowadays but it could've resulted in less fossil fuels burned elsewhere as well.

It is certainly not a natural disaster, nature doesn't consume electricity.
Its estimated to consume 0.5%. Environmental pollution, no matter how small is still considered pollution. All of the examples that you've listed are also culprits of carbon footprint but so is Bitcoin mining. Mining and processing silicon and the production of ASICs may not always be carbon neutral. There are bound to be people who both practice what they preach and advocate for their cause as well, can you really fault them?

If the benefit that arises from using Bitcoin with a higher transaction volume and adoption grows, then I would think there'll be less noise. Most of the commotion is almost always generated by the media.

You're right that in the last 170 years or so, a very small fraction of human existence, new technologies and lifestyle choices (not to mention a rising population) have been putting a growing ecological strain on the planet. In recent decades, machines have been doing more physical work and humans less (one of the reasons for weight gains). For many, computers are starting to take the place of exercising their own brain. The planet doesn't really need healthy humans to survive, but maybe we need a healthy planet?

Some people look at these things as a problems while others don't. Some of the most polluting industries have reduced their ecological footprints in recent years while bitcoin's has been increasing exponentially.   

If we were to assume that Bitcoin never existed at all, would the world be a better place to live in the sense that all this tremendous energy it currently uses would be redirected to some other things? All the energy used by crypto miners would be produced anyway, maybe some part would be used, but surely some of that energy would be wasted - therefore, I do not see a problem at all that energy is used for something like Bitcoin, but of course I understand that there are those who will declare even 0.2% of the world's total energy consumption a natural disaster.

That argument has been defeated hundreds of times, and all those who think Bitcoin is a problem of environmental pollution - stop using your cars, don't turn on the heating over the winter and completely eliminate plastic from your life. Of course, we have all been doing this for decades and no one wants to give up the comfort of life, and all our actions are a thousand times more dangerous than the fact that there is something called Bitcoin that currently consumes as much as 0.2% of total world electricity.

Thanks for compiling this list of arguments and sources. I agree that there are other things to focus on when it comes to ecological problems. Renewable sources of energy, cutting down the meat industry, promoting the usage of public transportation instead of cars could all make some difference. As for reducing the energy consumption, I believe there's another argument to be made here in Bitcoin's defense. Namely, as our civilization progresses, we're bound to use more and more energy in various forms (this reminds me of the Kardashev scale a little). Trying to cut down on energy consumption means using laptops, artificial lights, washing machines and many other things less, and turning instead to a more natural (in a sense of being close to nature) way of life. This clearly isn't happening, and humanity doesn't seem to be eager to let go of innovations that make our lives easier (and I don't think it should let go). So what's important is to focus on sustainability. Instead of trying to reduce energy consumption, we should focus on getting this energy from more eco-friendly sources and cutting down on other things that harm our planet. So what's bad is not that Bitcoin mining needs a lot of energy, but that the sources of this energy aren't always great.

A list of great statement to defend the Bitcoin network by the @OP in response to the critics who are always trying to defame the image of Bitcoin which is not under their control.There have always these arguments from the start and have fueled up with increase in prices and demand but you have given possible justification for each statement.


The amount of electricity which Bitcoin consumes is around 150Tw/H which is huge and can light up the entire country of Denmark and some others but if we make comparisons with other sources like banking sector then it is much lower like Banks are also using high cost of electricity like 200-250 Tw/h if we take combined cost of banks around America.Its not debatable why? Because they are centeral authorities that's why.


Miners are now trying to find new renewable resources to mine bitcoin as China is major source of Bitcoin mining with 65% of control but miners are continuously finding optimal ways to reduce the cost because they are the ones who are bearing cost of electricity and paying taxes to the government which is reducing their profits.China is undoubtedly exploiting its natural resources on building new projects daily and they don't blame themselves because who can argue with CCP its their rule.


To keep the network secure POW is the most secure algorithm used in Bitcoin network and it will consume high amount of electricity.Miners need some rewards for their work to keep network secure, validate transactions for which they need to mine Bitcoin and they are now using ASIC for mining which is more upgraded,fast and best for mining because they need to solve cryptographic puzzle whose difficulty is in trillions and every 10 minutes a block is mined.But you can't argue on this.Why are employees of bank paid so much of fixed salary just to keep the funds of people safely right? Government and private sector are spending so much money on employees just to provide services to the people and same is the case with Bitcoin mining.Miners need rewards in return of their work.

So these arguments will keep on going with rise in Bitcoin price and demand and slowly they all will be appreciating the Bitcoin network.

I think it's only black propaganda tactics from those people that were critical to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, It's too obvious and very noticeable that they are trying to single out the crypto Industry to blame in the name of preserving the environment and ignoring other Co2 contributor industries how ironic isn't it. But thanks to a useful thread like this those accusations will be debunked easily.

I mostly agree with what you have posted here @coinycoiny. Don't forget that people will close their mind and grasp at any straw to protect what they perceive as their economic interests...often times this is done subconsciously. Lot's of what is being said reminds me of Big Tabaco trying to paint smoking as healthy or the Oil & Gas industry trying to confuse the climate change debate. What most BTC holders don't understand is that they can sell BTC and switch to a greener crypto that has more potential upside and less environmental baggage.

@fillippone All your defenses to accusation 1 basically say that other human activities also use electricity that emit greenhouse gases, so why pick on bitcoin. To someone who believes that GHG emission is leading us towards a climate disaster (i.e. https://www.google.com/books/edition/How_to_Avoid_a_Climate_Disaster/pHK0DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover), that’s like saying “Yes, your honor, I   ______ (stole money, cheated on my taxes, beat my wife, etc.) but lots of my neighbors do the same thing.” It’s my believe that all industries need to get to net zero as soon as possible. Some are trying harder than others. People’s fascination with bitcoin put it in the news and its INCREASING CARBON FOOTPRINT put it in the crosshairs.  

In 1.2 you say “According to data from the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index devices kept on standby, in the United States alone, could power the bitcoin network for more than a year and a half. (a figure that has been constantly decreasing)” Are you saying that the number of years is going down? If so, that means that the amount of electrical consumption by standby devices is going down and/or the amount of power used by the bitcoin network is going up.

1.4 What gives you and other humans more enjoyment, watching bitcoin get mined or watching Netflix?

Your defenses to the Accusation that “Miners in China ravage the environment to produce Bitcoin. A large part of electricity production in China is made with fossil sources, especially coal, and the ecological footprint of Bitcoin is unsustainable” are more nuanced.

• 1. Environmentalists would say that it is a good thing and NOT A WASTE for coal to stay in the ground where it has sequestered carbon for many years.
  
  2. Yes, SOME bitcoin mining uses green sources that would otherwise be wasted.
  
  3. According to your link, one study estimated 72% of mining energy came from non-renewable sources (like coal and nuclear), while another, that you cited, had the figure at 61%. In either case, the majority is coming from unpopular sources that either emit GHG or produce hazardous waste that has to be stored for multiple generations.
  
  4. Yes, bitcoin does help the profits of the energy industry.
  
  5. Yes, there are ways for the energy industry to get more efficient. Some blockchain applications may help with this. See also 1.4 as many would say there are more beneficial ways to use computing power in the positive ways you suggest that the bitcoin network may be doing currently or in the future.

   

Accusation- “The Bitcoin network is maximally inefficient. PoW leads to the consumption of a huge amount of energy for each Bitcoin transaction if for example, we compare it with VISA.”

• 1.Aren’t there more energy efficient ways to secure a network?
  
  2. Yes, miners are trying to use the most efficient computing power and lowest cost of energy, regardless of source. When minors upgrade from one computer source to another (or replace an ASIC) lots of e-waste is created.
  
  3. Yes, lots of industries have negative externalities that should be better factored in. Emissions/Pollution fees that charges all polluters which is then returned equally to all individuals would help incentivize less pollution and be a net benefit to those that cause less than their fair share. As you mention with bitcoin, it is not just the transactions that lead to CO2 emissions, but also securing the network for anyone that holds BTC. This is why I suggested that governments may tax holders in cases where the miners are outside their jurisdiction (the rational being that those importing a polluting product should not get a free pass just because they don’t purchase locally). https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoincrypto-carbon-tax-5323833
  
  4. Yes, per the Bitcoin whitepaper, the system is designed to use lots of energy.
  
  5. Again, two wrongs don’t make a right. Gold isn’t green either and should also be subject to pollution/carbon/environmental fees. My guess is that gold hasn’t exponentially increased its GHG emissions in the last 5 years like bitcoin, but they should still look to be going to net zero and pay for any negative externalities. There are those that object to gold (I.e. Now, https://www.earthworks.org/campaigns/no-dirty-gold/impacts/ and before bitcoin was in the crosshairs https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/environmental-disaster-gold-industry-180949762/) and the US prohibited the hording of gold in 1933 (albeit for economic and not environmental reasons). As a side note, if you stopped gold mining, the price might go up and additional ecological issues would be virtually eliminated (but long term effects of past mining would still present a problem)...with BTC, as you point out, the network relies on miners indefinitely for security purposes.

Yes, its unfair to single out bitcoin rather than have broad rules/fees/taxes that apply equally to everyone, but with more people concerned about climate change, no broad self-regulation from the bitcoin community on electrical sources, and the fact that electrical use is DESIGNED TO GO UP as the price goes up (regardless of how much utility it is providing), bitcoin will stay in the environmental crosshairs until something changes. Having control over money is power, and governments could certainly use bitcoin's environmental shortcomings as an excuse to regulate and take back that power if they feel BTC is a threat. Smarter for the crypto community to proactively find a greener horse to back (or for the bitcoin industry to clean up its act ASAP)

Very well thought out and I didn't have much to counter as well.

You're comparing Bitcoin to its substitutes instead of the various other human activities which could produce significant carbon footprint. Heck, I can think of tons of activities that directly contribute to an increased carbon footprint; transportation, chemical industries, etc. Does that mean that we can just stop producing metals, refining fossil fuels, completely eliminate them from our lives? Probably not.

In comparison, when you're talking about Bitcoin, the adoption currently is far lower than most of it's substitutes. At 7tps, there are tons of other payment methods that easily outpaces this by a factor of thousands without a strain on their network. Can people stop using Bitcoin? Probably, there are other payment methods because really, do the majority of the people absolutely care about decentralization, transparency? I can see an argument for this if your transaction volume rivals them but if the benefits are still fairly limited, then probably not.

---

What about the e-waste that is constantly generated from Bitcoin mining? The competition makes it such that old ASICs are always phased out once the profit margin diminishes and as ASICs can never be reprogrammed into something else, they usually end up being useless afterwards. Of course, they're always turned on 24/7 with the chips pushed to their limits and the failure rates can be higher than most electronics. Surely both the production and disposal of these ASICs are fairly detrimental to the environment? You can't recycle silicon, or that's what I know.

I'm a strong proponent that Bitcoin's electrical usage, while fairly significant doesn't pose as a serious problem. I can't see how e-waste wouldn't be an issue, as we're talking about environmental impact after all.

I've seen few people says there's no point of having ~100K Bitcoin full nodes when each node do same thing. While those people don't mention environmental impact, it's possible someone will use such argument on topic "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster". Anyway, here's few defense

1. Bitcoin full node isn't resource demanding, even Raspberry Pi can run full node.
2. Full node can act as server to SPV wallet which give necessary data (block header, transaction, address balance, etc.)
3. Improve user's privacy


Both atheist and religious people usually think they know they're right.

Just keep it simple.
Bitcoin is inherently Green Energy.

https://youtu.be/E5gXD40OHcg

Sometimes I feel like an atheist walking into a church.

I know I'm right, but nobody has an open mind.

Great OP fillippone! This should be pinned somewhere for everyone to visit constantly.

Bitcoins energy consumption has been used as a stick to beat it with for years by those
opposed to it but this certainly highlights the facts. Unfortunately the vast majority
of people will continue to believe the bankers and politicians when they play that
card again but we have the facts.

We can also compare the cost of minting coins and printing notes for the FIAT system,
the process used for all currencies around the world.

I would love to see the statistics and numbers for this.

The cost considerations of producing coinage:
1. Heavy machinery production
2. Transportation to mining site
3.Fuel and energy to extract raw material from the earth
4. Raw material transported to a refinery and the cost of refining itself
5. Transportation of refined metal to minting locations and 6. Minting process
7. Transportation to central banks
8. Distribution from central banks to regional banks
9. Distribution from regional banks to retailers
10. Management of coins
11. Storage and security

The cost considerations of producing paper notes
1. Transporting heavy machinery to forests
2. Felling trees
3. Transportation to paper mills
4. Transportation of fibre to the mills
5. Producing raw material for notes
6. Printing of notes
7. Management of waste chemicals
8. Transportation of notes to central banks
9. Distribution of notes to regional banks
10. Distribution of notes to retailers
11. Management of used notes
12. Storage and security

And after all that, what is the cost to the environment?