There may be some folks who believe that there is an "us" that is willing (or able) to be "driven towards green energy," but I am thinking that you are getting your language wrong here.. because the incentives built into bitcoin gives no ratts' asses whether energy is green or not... There are incentives that the energy be less expensive; however, the extent to which any mining operation is going to be operating at "optimal efficiencies" will depend upon a variety of factors - which (the last time I checked) continue to be decentralized to the extent that individuals, mining institutions (and surely pools too) are considering a variety of factors in regards to when, where and how to conduct their mining operations and "green" aspects may well be discretionary - depending on a variety of factors.
I am not proclaiming that you are completely wrong.. but your suggestion that "green" has to be a priority based on current happenings seems to misdescribe what might be dogs and what might be tails - even though they are both present on the same animal.
Not sure we are talking about the same incentives. Mining with cheaper, green energy instead of dirty, more expensive energy : Which is better? Economically and ethically obviously the clean energy miners. I already gave you the source on green energy production costing less than outdated energy production.
At some point, people will start realizing that they can get the same electricity but at lower costs. Thats when big oil starts dying and their lobbyist buddies no longer have incentives to screw everyone over by polluting our living-environment and bodies. I guess some people just enjoy their fish pre-oiled before cooking.
Guten Apetite.
Aren't you presuming too much, goldkingcoiner? Where do you get the idea that "Green" energy is always cheaper? Might the cost of energy and the advantages and disadvantages of each energy type differ based on location, and sometimes there could be some justifications to operate some kinds of energy at a loss in order to fund research or the development of future energy-related technologies.. and surely bitcoin has a lot of various ways in which energy can be consumed that had not been previously practical. so I am not really disagreeing with the ideas about the need to analyze generation, transmission and distribution.. . .and it seems that we also have concerns about how energy is consumed too.. especially when it comes to certain kinds of consumption that is deemed to be "less important" by some segments of the population.. so surely generation, transmission and distribution are supply side factors and some concerns about consumption has recently been part of what is being considered in the recent formulas too... and also who consumes the energy.. there seem to be some protectionism regarding who can consume what kinds of energy too, no? and bitcoin is part of the idea.. but "we" don't want poor people to be consuming energy, right? They might get richer by figuring out how to consume energy in ways to benefit their situations rather than contributing to the ability of others to be able to consume. I am not claiming to know the answer.. but it seems that arguments are being convoluted and maybe it is not always on purpose... even though sometimes it seems that the convolution is happening on purpose.. and it is not just on one side of the political spectrum, either
I linked the source. But I guess if you live in the Arctic, it would be hard to generate electricity with sunlight or wind.
I guess you are half-right. But a few more decades of global warming and we won't have to worry about that. We will be too busy treating daily heatstroke.
Big oil is the bad guy? I have difficulties with this presumption.
Your difficulties have been noted and will be taken seriously.
I understand various arguments regarding privatizing the gains and socializing the losses, so I would agree that companies should not be socializing some of their expenses (which would include costs to the environment that sometimes need to be sufficiently and adequately considered).. I am also not inclined to privatize everything, so there is a role for government and also a role to protect various public interests when it comes to energy production and also energy availability, yet I have difficulties considering that the energy companies are always the bad guys.. because there are some needs for allowing for the production and finding of resources and the various supply-side factors that you mentioned.
Big Oil is running on marketing only, at this point. People are either too afraid or too greedy to give our old energy production system up for a better system. Like people who cannot give fiat up even though it is obviously becoming redundant. We call those people nocoiners.
Climate change deniers are the nocoiners of science.
Poll
