Bitcoin Forum

The cryptocurrency bitcoin has been touted by its proponents as a way to help solve our most pressing problems, from homelessness and human trafficking to cancer and the global financial crisis. Bitcoin's ability to reduce fraud and security risk has made it one of the most transparent digital currencies on the market. Many see this as a critical next step to holding governments accountable for carbon emissions, and even developing a market for reducing the world's carbon footprint.

But the currency also has a dark side. A new study from the University of Hawaii finds that if bitcoin becomes more widely adopted, the huge amounts of electricity used to trade the cryptocurrency could push global temperatures above 2 degrees Celsius by 2033. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a 2-degree rise in global temperatures could reduce water availability in some areas by up to 30%, make arctic species like the polar bear and caribou vulnerable to extinction, and subject another 10 million people to coastal flooding. While bitcoin isn't responsible for as many emissions as pollution-heavy industries in the US, such as agriculture and transportation, the industry is releasing carbon dioxide at an alarming rate.

Full article : https://www.businessinsider.de/bitcoin-climate-carbon-emissions-rising-2018-10?r=US&IR=T

bullshitinsider  ;D

Lol

---

Come on, it's not a dark side when crypto is providing a ready market for the energy sector, the academicians from the university should know this or rather do more research on how well to make use of the heat from the mining rigs/farms.

This is the scary part about bitcoin mining as the wasted energy in the form of heat is affecting it's surrounding environments and we have seen floods destroy people's homes year in year out and if something can be done then by all means be the problem solver, but I know for a fact that pulling the plug with no alternative solutions for people to stop crypto mining will not stop this activity.

Not true.

Bitcoin uses renewables, because that's where the cheapest energy prices are. China used to be the problem with that (most Chinsese power plants are coal), but the Chinese government is stopping everything Bitcoin related these days (you'd think businessinsider.com would know that)

Oh god, again with this sh*t.

I consider myself to be very environmentally conscious man, Bitcoin is not the problem, our current energy management is much more of a problem then Bitocin energy consumption.
Bitcoin has 0 impact to environment if the energy to power miners comes from alternative resources, as it is starting to happen since otherwise it just does not make financial sense.

Another crappy journalism again.  :'(



They should target out those current energy management rather than focusing to target out bitcoin energy consumption.They are just literally aiming
on it alone without recognizing the global problems that had been existing for longer years as of now.

It's worth pointing out that climate scientists don't even agree that CO² emissions are a problem.

What do you expect from Businessinsider? Haven't they read this?

(https://phys.org/news/2018-08-energy-bitcoin.html)


So Carlton Banks, is right. And people are learning as well: (https://bitcoinist.com/iceland-solution-cryptocurrency-mining/)


So the argument is flawed at the beginning. I'm thinking that WWF argument would be next, crypto should preserved those "Whales" as well. LOL.

The greatest scientist in the whole world, Professor Trump, said there is no climate change. Case closed   :-X

---

I believe i answered this question last year. It is very hard for journalists to find new topics to talk about these days  :-\

sick of the bullcrap articles like this one
at least here people know they are scaremongering and their "arguments" can be ostracized and laughed at
but to many people if they read that bitcoin mining is responsible for global warming, it sounds true
I'm far from thinking that bitcoin mining operators are eco friendly and Greenpeace members in their entirety,but
many are using solar , wind and hydro for the sole reason - it is cheaper

there are many things that destroy the environment, the cars, the coal industries, burning fossil fuels, are many things that push global temper, so why are they talking about bitcoin? 11 years ago had no bitcoin and even then we have heard of global warming, this article seems to me one of those articles where there are hidden agendas

Bitcoin mining does use a lot of power. There's no doubt about it.

However, there isn't really an issue with it using that much power as long as the energy that is being used is renewable and environmental friendly, such as hydroelectricity, and wind power plants. In that case, it does not cause any damage, at least not any more than say, banks or the mastercard/visa networks.

In many cases in fact, IIRC, bitcoin mining is using up excess renewable energy that would have been wasted anyways.

So thus, it's really non-issue in my opinion. Besides, this power is going towards a purpose, it's not just wasted.

Even if it was "wasted" energy, it only affects the miners since they are the ones that end up paying the bill, not some funny journalists who are only out to talk down on Bitcoin to generate ad revenue.

If miners weren't demanding so much energy, the energy suppliers would generate less revenue, and the state would generate less tax income. There are no losers if it doesn't affect local people, which it doesn't in most cases.

We'll keep seeing these articles continue to pop up throughout the coming years with how the network keeps growing. It's an endless source of content for news outlets, just like the price is.

I'm not surprised with such stupid study, especially if we see where it comes from - University of Hawaii - probably the researchers spent too much time in the sun or have some serious problems with the brain. Even title is idiotic, they use term "trading" and probably think on mining power, so for them this is same process...

The fact is that total consumption of electricity consumed for crypto mining is less then 1% of the total annual consumption of electricity. With so little electricity consumption on a global scale claim that BTC trading (not mining) will cause a temperature rise of two degrees it's really stupid.

There is not much room for discussion regarding CO2 impact on global warming. If you are going to throw around such statements better give a reference to scientist and their work.

The story of C02 impact is rather simple:
The sun has rather wide radiance spectrum but the atmosphere of our planet mostly does not absorb visible light and it is transmitted thru atmosphere , some of the light is scattered and some reaches earth and warms it up, warm bodies (also earth) emits heath radiation which then is absorbed by CO2 molecules in atmosphere .
CO2 is a molecule which has a high absorption in range of Infra red wavelength region [1] or in other words it absorbs heat. Without CO2
in atmosphere much of this IR radiation would escape our atmosphere therefore not warming up our climate. This is solid and undeniable proof of negative effect of CO2 on our climate.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

Yep, that's all good science.

How much CO² is too much? That's where climate scientists disagree.

If they replaced fiat with bitcoins then there would be a lot more energy saved around the world. A single global currency where they wouldn't have to have minting machines and perhaps even banks as it will all be on the blockchain

And then what? Have governments ruin Bitcoin? No thank you.

Another thing is that most fiat isn't printed, but brought to live by simply changing a few data metrics in the central bank's system. People use money printing just as a term referring to money creation, not to actually printing physical money. Either way, let them consume as much energy as they feel is necessary, who cares?

People use fiat because it's useful, and the same applies to Bitcoin. There are more pressing matters in the world to focus on. ::)

I think it's evident that at the current moment there are way too many tonnes of CO² emitted on a daily basis. And if we continue in this manner an increase of 2 degrees isn't that far fetched. But bitcoin being a decisive factor in this matter is the most laughable thing I've heard in a while.

But that doesn't take away the fact that we should urgently double down on CO² emissions. At the end of the day we are just endangering our own species. The earth on the other hand will be fine, with or without us.

No, that's what newspapers and politicians keep endlessly repeating. If the newspapers repeat "Vietnam is threatening USA" or "Saddam Hussein has WMD", does that make it true?

I think we all know they don't investigate important issues very well. If they did, they would present both sides of the story, not just that which they prefer.

I partially agree with you here but you're still generalizing here. Especially when it comes to global warming because the raw data is at our disposal (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.co2e.pc (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.co2e.pc)). There are countless scientific reports indicating that global warming is a direct consequence of the increasing CO² emissions. You don't even need to read newspapers to realize that.



And what do you think is the other side of the story? What kind of agenda do you think they're trying to push, if any?

There are climate scientists and naturalists who claim that their studies demonstrate there's no change in trend for temperature (and that defining what "average temperature" affects the outcome significantly)

And I'm not sure what makes the World Bank any more credulous a source of science than journalists.

Lol, Another "paid" study. I mean they have got the guts to use a title like that. I would love to read an article from "bullshitinsider" that how much electricity is wasted per year by the USA alone. I debunked their claim in an earlier thread. if you guys want to read it I will attach it below. Basically, the gist of it is 6 times more energy is wasted by the USA than the whole bitcoin network uses each year.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4943478.msg44566177#msg44566177

Source?


How about NASA? And please don't come up with some silly conspiracy theory.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

97% of scientists worldwide agree that global warming is happening and will have consequences in the (near) future.
At this point scientists aren't arguing whether it's real but rather how fast it's going to happen.

While I'm not going to argue that temperatures are rising, we can call it global warming or climate change. It's all a matter of perspective. While it may be getting warmer on the poles, the Gulf Stream is weakening and results in Europe becoming colder. While you're talking about global warming it's snowing in South Africa.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/11/giraffes-in-the-snow-south-africa-karoo-desert

Does Bitcoin mining have something to do with that? I very much doubt it and people who are saying that mining will raise global temperatures by 2* are delusional. Google and Facebook servers combined produce a comparable amount of heat and they've been doing it for much longer than Bitcoin miners.

I don't regularly check this topic out, but there certainly are dissenting views from credible scientists. If you're interested, you should search for them. It's actually a benefit to understand the sceptical point of view if you want to argue against it.

If you're not interested in valid antithetical-arguments, but express strong belief in the corresponding thesis, don't expect anyone to take you seriously if you make strong statements on a subject you're not interseted in learning about.



What difference does it make if NASA has a position? Aren't you interested in what's factual? Science is supposed to be about using rational methodology and measurements to prove facts, not who says what.



Yeah that's pretty much correct. You can include me: climate change is real, and CO² is a greenhouse gas, there is no doubt

What percentage of climate scientists think climate change is happening so slowly that there is no real discernible problem? And does it even matter how low or high the percentages are, when scientific facts are what actually matter?

Fair point, climate change would be the more complete way to define what's happening right now. I am by no means an expert when it comes to this but I am learning everyday. The main point I am trying to stress here is that those increased levels of carbon dioxide, and whatever their effects may be, are doing more harm than good.


I second this. Completely delusional.

And again, where is source?

It is too much when average (yearly) temperature of earth is rising. Which causes climate anomalies, rising waters and possibly worst of all thawing permafrost which protects huge amounts of C02 . These all are negative effects which can and are measured and recorded.

Getting that answer ("average temperature is rising") depends on how you measure it. Not all methodologies of measuring the average temperature indicate a significant rise.

You're talking about an exceptionally complicated topic, but you want to make it seem simple. Weather patterns change for literally thousands of reasons, not just your personal favourite reason.

Bitcoin trades while the volumes are very small with a comparison of the market for Fiat money, and are unlikely to come close in the near future, but I think bankers know what to do if Bitcoin is not their toy.