2021-02-05 CNBC - Btc’s ride renews worries about its massive carbon footprint

[acquafredda]

    Bitcoin has a carbon footprint comparable to that of New Zealand, producing 36.95 megatons of CO2 annually, according to Digiconomist.
    The cryptocurrency consumes more electricity than the entire annual energy consumption of the Netherlands, Cambridge University researchers say.
    Critics say there are alternative tokens that consume far less power, while bulls argue disputes about bitcoin’s environmental impact miss the point.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/05/bitcoin-btc-surge-renews-worries-about-its-massive-carbon-footprint.html

Come on guys, please turn off your miners. Greta asks you to do so. It is over, you have been polluting far too long, your crazy little petty nerd money has no future and will keep dirtying our planet. Please reconvert to seti@home or whatever you wish. /s

[1714608170]

1714608170

[Lucius]

I wondered when an article on this topic would reappear - "Bitcoin, a technology that is destroying the planet". Of course, some never give up looking for the negative, even when it has been proven countless times that crypto mining in the worst version consumes perhaps about 0.2% of the total amount of world energy.

However, the following can also be read in the article - which still reflects the real situation a little better.

“Although we agree the amounts are ludicrous right now, that is still half as much as inactive home appliances in the U.S. consumed,” Rauchs said. The amount of energy wasted on idle home devices like phone chargers and microwaves in the U.S. could power the bitcoin network for two years.

It's just US wasted energy, and if I applied it to the whole world I believe we would get an amount that BTC wouldn't spend for the next 50-100 years. When we add that the largest BTC mining farms are located mainly next to the world's largest hydroelectric power plants, then it is difficult to understand how for some this theory still serves to portray Bitcoin as something that destroys the environment.

Of course, the author also mentioned some alternatives (shitcoins) that consume a very small amount of energy for their work - so I wouldn't be surprised if articles like this are actually sponsored by some of the owners of those same shitcoins.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I'll be honest, it's getting kind of boring debunking the same nonsense every few months whenever a different news network or blog site picks it up and runs a story without really understanding the facts.

Firstly, electricity consumption is irrelevant - source of electricity production is what we should be interested in. It doesn't matter if bitcoin uses 5 gazillion terawatt hours if all 5 gazillion of them come from 100% renewable sources.

Secondly, the website that that article is based on assumes that all bitcoin mining is using the average global electricity. This is not the case, and we know that bitcoin mining actually uses almost 80% renewable sources. Therefore the CO₂ production will be significantly lower than this article makes out.

Thirdly, the CO₂ that bitcoin mining produces is literally inconsequential. Streaming online pornography accounts for 30x more CO₂ production than bitcoin does. This is just porn. No mention of Netflix, or Disney Plus, or Amazon Video, or Hulu, or any of the major steaming services that use magnitudes more electricity. I've never once seen a news article about how we could all save the planet if we just stopped watching so much porn.

What about other massive contributions to global CO₂? Console gaming? PC gaming? Leaving devices on standby? Printing, moving around, and destroying trillions of notes of fiat currency? Electricity to power every bank branch and ATM in the world? Hell, even just the annual beef consumption of 5% of the US population produces more CO₂ than bitcoin does.
 
But sure, it is bitcoin that is the problem.

[zanezane]

I'll be honest, it's getting kind of boring debunking the same nonsense every few months whenever a different news network or blog site picks it up and runs a story without really understanding the facts.

You know that is how news stories nowadays are operating, they are not after the truth, they want sensational stories, the ones that raise eyebrows and make a good headline. Vulture basics.

Firstly, electricity consumption is irrelevant - source of electricity production is what we should be interested in. It doesn't matter if bitcoin uses 5 gazillion terawatt hours if all 5 gazillion of them come from 100% renewable sources.

The problem here is that not every mines consume TW of electricity from renewable resources, as of now, research says that globally we are still dependent on coal power plants despite advances in renewable resources, one good proof is Germany planning to dismantle all their Nuclear Power Plants in exchange for coal power plants.

Secondly, the website that that article is based on assumes that all bitcoin mining is using the average global electricity. This is not the case, and we know that bitcoin mining actually uses almost 80% renewable sources. Therefore the CO₂ production will be significantly lower than this article makes out.

Again with the sensationalism, they throw in numbers to make it look bad.

Thirdly, the CO₂ that bitcoin mining produces is literally inconsequential. Streaming online pornography accounts for 30x more CO₂ production than bitcoin does. This is just porn. No mention of Netflix, or Disney Plus, or Amazon Video, or Hulu, or any of the major steaming services that use magnitudes more electricity. I've never once seen a news article about how we could all save the planet if we just stopped watching so much porn.

What about other massive contributions to global CO₂? Console gaming? PC gaming? Leaving devices on standby? Printing, moving around, and destroying trillions of notes of fiat currency? Electricity to power every bank branch and ATM in the world? Hell, even just the annual beef consumption of 5% of the US population produces more CO₂ than bitcoin does.

On the porn part, there was a meme back then about Pornhub planting trees for a video watched, I don't know if it is true though. If we were to blame other causes then we will not be different from this news networks, we have to be the big guy in this part.

[o_e_l_e_o]

they want sensational stories, the ones that raise eyebrows and make a good headline.

Pretty much. Whatever generates clicks makes them money.

The problem here is that not every mines consume TW of electricity from renewable resources

Yes, not every miner is mining on renewables, and not every miner which is mining on renewables is mining solely on renewables. However, the best research we have at the moment (https://coinshares.com/assets/resources/Research/bitcoin-mining-network-december-2019.pdf) shows that bitcoin mining is using 73-74% renewable energy, which is about 4 times the global average, and bitcoin mining is actually subsidizing and promoting the development of new renewable energy sources by buying and using renewable electricity which would otherwise go to waste.

If we were to blame other causes then we will not be different from this news networks, we have to be the big guy in this part.

Sure, but when you see such as headlines as "Bitcoin is killing the planet" and "Bitcoin will burn the world down" (these are real headlines, but I refuse to link them to give them the clickbait revenue they want), then we need to put things in to a bit of context. Bitcoin is a minuscule fraction of global CO₂ production, and to suggest that it is an significant source of CO₂ production is just plain incorrect.

[acquafredda]

I'll be honest, it's getting kind of boring debunking the same nonsense every few months whenever a different news network or blog site picks it up and runs a story without really understanding the facts.

Firstly, electricity consumption is irrelevant - source of electricity production is what we should be interested in. It doesn't matter if bitcoin uses 5 gazillion terawatt hours if all 5 gazillion of them come from 100% renewable sources.

Secondly, the website that that article is based on assumes that all bitcoin mining is using the average global electricity. This is not the case, and we know that bitcoin mining actually uses almost 80% renewable sources. Therefore the CO₂ production will be significantly lower than this article makes out.

Thirdly, the CO₂ that bitcoin mining produces is literally inconsequential. Streaming online pornography accounts for 30x more CO₂ production than bitcoin does. This is just porn. No mention of Netflix, or Disney Plus, or Amazon Video, or Hulu, or any of the major steaming services that use magnitudes more electricity. I've never once seen a news article about how we could all save the planet if we just stopped watching so much porn.

What about other massive contributions to global CO₂? Console gaming? PC gaming? Leaving devices on standby? Printing, moving around, and destroying trillions of notes of fiat currency? Electricity to power every bank branch and ATM in the world? Hell, even just the annual beef consumption of 5% of the US population produces more CO₂ than bitcoin does.
 
But sure, it is bitcoin that is the problem.

You should please send an article to those funny guys at CNBC to explain this! I was not sure if I wanted to share the article or not but I mean this was out there for everyone to see it so why not debunking it here again? I think it is very important also for noobs to get the right info on this topic so better to talk about it every time it presents.

[zanezane]

~

Yes, not every miner is mining on renewables, and not every miner which is mining on renewables is mining solely on renewables. However, the best research we have at the moment (https://coinshares.com/assets/resources/Research/bitcoin-mining-network-december-2019.pdf) shows that bitcoin mining is using 73-74% renewable energy, which is about 4 times the global average, and bitcoin mining is actually subsidizing and promoting the development of new renewable energy sources by buying and using renewable electricity which would otherwise go to waste.

I have heard about this research, there is also an interview about a mine somewhere in the USA that said that they are planning on making the cost of electricity cost less by making their mines closer to the energy source, and if I am remembering it correctly, it was a mine that operates with hydropower. Although hydropower is not a carbon footprint contributor, incompetence among the plant developer will cost a lot of life, there is a data that shows a grim data of Deaths per TW, and Hydropower is higher than Nuclear power plants by a large margin and Nuclear power plants is the least deadly of them all but I digress, renewable energy might be safe for the environment but direct and indirect deaths involving them are really unsettling. Another problem for renewable energy is the cost of their transport which also contributes to carbon footprint as most vehicles for logistics are not yet electric operated.

~

Sure, but when you see such as headlines as "Bitcoin is killing the planet" and "Bitcoin will burn the world down" (these are real headlines, but I refuse to link them to give them the clickbait revenue they want), then we need to put things in to a bit of context. Bitcoin is a minuscule fraction of global CO₂ production, and to suggest that it is an significant source of CO₂ production is just plain incorrect.

That's why I said that we should be the big guy, if they give an incorrect context then it is our duty as a small community to dispel the enchantment of wrong notion towards bitcoin.

[cr1776]

...
What about other massive contributions to global CO₂? Console gaming? PC gaming? Leaving devices on standby? Printing, moving around, and destroying trillions of notes of fiat currency? Electricity to power every bank branch and ATM in the world? Hell, even just the annual beef consumption of 5% of the US population produces more CO₂ than bitcoin does.
 
But sure, it is bitcoin that is the problem.

Not to mention all the CO2 generated by complaining about bitcoin generating too much carbon.  :-)

Kidding aside, what about the amount spent on securing fiat  but the guards, the armored trucks, the airplane security, the security around printing presses, bank security while processing it. Perhaps you included that in moving it around, but there is just nonsense from naysayer luddites in this kind of thing.