Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument

[fillippone]

Recently I often heard bitcoin critics telling me that "Bitcoin is too polluting", "Bitcoin wastes too much energy", or other similar arguments.


Those arguments are as old as bitcoin, even Satoshi discussed those, and they had been debunked several times, but I am trying here to organise the material to counter those accusations.

I will try to "answer" specific claims with a few counterarguments supported by data, websites and references. So that it will be easier to organise a "defence" of Bitcoin in the unlikely case that Bitcoin needs a defence.

• • Accusation
    
    • The bitcoin network consumes as much electricity as XXX
    • Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index
    
    
  • Defence
    
    • Televisions, aeroplanes, Christmas lights, plastic, all require enormous amounts of energy to be produced and used: what is the amount of energy considered excessive to produce them? Why is this calculation done for Bitcoin and not for other goods?
    • 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).
    • Mining bitcoin is actually quite environmentally friendly compared to mining other Stores of Value (Gold)
      
      

      Bitcoin is recognised as a store of value, making it comparable to gold. In 2020, 3,200 tonnes of gold was mined, equating to approximately 90,301,440 million tonnes of CO2 emitted.
      In comparison, Bitcoin is estimated to emit around 37 million tonnes of CO2 throughout 2021, with China powering 65% of the hash rate in March 2021. China pledges to be net zero by 2050, along with most of the world, under the Paris agreement. Under the assumption this is achieved, this would indicate Bitcoin will be powered by renewable energy by 2050, making it a zero-carbon technology. In addition, gold mining is renowned for being one of the most destructive industries responsible for polluting drinking water with cyanide, mercury and other heavy metals whilst destroying pristine environments and causing damaging health effects. Removing reliance on the need for gold not only has the potential to decarbonise the gold reserve industry but also reduces these negative environmental and health impacts. However, the reliance on countries sticking to the Paris Agreement is needed in order to decarbonise Bitcoin.
      Edit: Information on China's energy policy
      China uses the most cost-effective renewables and could viably generate 60% of its energy with green energy by 2030. It is estimated the renewable energy implementation could save China around 11% in monetary cost. Feasibly following the laws of economics, Bitcoin miners will be more likely to use renewable energy sources if they are cheaper. Therefore, reducing Bitcoin's carbon footprint.
      

      Reddit Source
      
      
    • Other human activities produce comparable results.
      According to a recent study, watching Netflix for an hour produces 100g of CO2.
      Netflix has 205 millions of subscribers.
      Each Netflix subscriber watches two hours daily, on average.
      Hence Netflix streamed 149 billion hours last year.
      If each of these hours is 100g of CO₂, then to watch Netflix, 15 million metric tons of CO₂ have been added to the atmosphere every year. Netflix alone is almost one-third of the whole Bitcoin industry. So guess what happens when we add other services.
      
       
      
      

• • Accusation
    
    • Miners in China ravage the environment to produce Bitcoin. A large part of electricity production in China is made from fossil sources, especially coal, and the ecological footprint of Bitcoin is unsustainable.
    
    
  • Defence
    
    • Miners, by their nature, have the incentive to search for energy at the lowest possible cost. The energy market, like any other, is governed by the laws of supply and demand. The cheap energy is typically produced in excess that otherwise would not be exploited and literally wasted.
    • Many miners are concentrated in large hydroelectric plants (for example, in China) where the levels of production surplus are enormous and can thus obtain very low energy prices. Suffice it to say that in 2017, compared to 250twh produced by the Yunnan dams, 155twh were used (95twh thrown away, since they cannot be stored).
    • Recent studies show that bitcoin mining uses 39% energy from renewable sources (solar, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, etc.) and 25% from energy derived from nuclear power and, to a minimum, fossil fuels. This percentage is steadily increasing, especially in China, where the transition to low carbon footprint production is happening more rapidly.
    • Bitcoin helps the efficiency of the energy industry; for example, it can help prevent "Renewable Curtailment" as well as making it profitable to capture gas otherwise destined to be burned in gas flaring which encourages producers to reduce carbon emissions. Low-carbon energy projects such as hydroelectric, nuclear or renewables can be made profitable by selling the excess energy produced to the mining of bitcoin.
    • A very large part of the energy produced is not used correctly, partly because it despairs in unprofitable uses (dispersion in networks, thermal dispersion in endothermic engines etc ...) and partially because it is produced in places or moments where not necessary (e.g., power plants producing during off-peak times, nuclear power plants when price is too low, etc.). Well, in this space, Bitcoin can make a massive contribution by efficiently using resources that would otherwise be wasted.
      
      

      Notice that rejected energy accounts for around two-thirds of all electricity generation. This energy is produced but ultimately does not go to practical work. The amount wasted annually is around 66.7 quadrillions of BTUs (for short: "quads") of power. For perspective, that is the energy equivalent of wasting 2.3 billion metric tons of coal every year.

      
      

      The potential for Bitcoin-powered renewables is already evident in China. A 2019 report by Coinshares found that approximately 75% of Bitcoin mining comes from renewable energy sources, much of which stems from newly created hydroelectricity. These new revenue streams have brought power plants online, which otherwise would not have been economically viable given existing conditions.

      
      
      
      
    • Bitcoin is a battery.
      

      So, if we think of Bitcoin as a battery, what can we do with it? The critical properties of Bitcoin's battery are: 1) always on and permissionless (no need to find customers, just plug and go) and 2) naturally seeking low-cost electricity: it will always buy when the price is right.
      
      Given those properties, Bitcoin's battery can assist renewable builds (and electric grids more generally) in several ways:
      

      • Interconnection lines: When developing new energy resources, you must apply them to connect them to the grid. Texas alone has over 100 GW of renewables in its lines. These lines can take years to clear. In the meantime, these assets could be online and earn Bitcoin.
        
      • Project finance: Renewable developers need capital to finance build-outs before they have customers. Bitcoin's battery is always ready to be the first customer.
      • Geographic issues: Sometimes, the sunniest, windiest places are not the ones with the most customers, so it's hard to justify the development of new renewables. Bitcoin's battery solves this, becoming a "virtual transmission line" of sorts.
      • Timing & grid balance: Sometimes, when the sun shines and when the wind blows is not when we need the most electricity. Yet, electric grids are marketplaces that must balance supply and demand perfectly. Therefore, grid-connected renewables often have to "curtail" (turn off) if they produce too much energy at the wrong time. Bitcoin's battery is ready to buy 24/7/365 when the price is right, turning up and down as needed and participating via direct power purchase agreements and demand response programs.
      • Underperformance: Related to the timing & balance issues above, often, renewables produce more energy than is needed on their grid, leading to subpar financial performance. Bitcoin's battery is ready to buy if no one else will.
      • Cleaning the grid: Even outside of renewable generation, Bitcoin's battery can help improve both emissions and the energy mix. For example, Crusoe Energy attaches efficient turbines and mining equipment to existing gas flaring sites, both improving emissions and converting energy into Bitcoin's battery. Taking this a step further, you could even then take those profits and reinvest them in on-grid renewables elsewhere, another twist on the idea of Bitcoin as a "virtual transmission line" (aka battery).

      
      

      
      
      

• • Accusation
    
    • The Bitcoin network is maximally inefficient. PoW leads to a considerable amount of energy consumption for each Bitcoin transaction if, for example, we compare it with Visa.
    
    
  • Defence
    
    • The energy consumed by the Bitcoin network is also used to secure it since an attacker who wants to try to destroy Bitcoin would have to use (therefore buy or produce) a higher amount of energy compared to that used by the Bitcoin network.
    • PoW is efficient and mining is a highly competitive industry. Any slightest energy inefficiency is punished by lower profitability. This guides miners towards the highest possible efficiency.
    • The cost of mining is not the energy cost of transactions, and specific metrics they claim to compare, e.g. the price of a single bitcoin transaction with the energy consumption of a transaction on the Visa circuit, are entirely meaningless. The mining mechanism serves precisely to make the system safe (from double-spending to other possible attacks on the network) in a trustless network, i.e. without a central authority that effectively updates the ledger. The only honest comparison would be with the overall cost of circuit security systems and banking systems. How much is spent each year globally to make banks and payment systems safe and reliable? With all the dedicated servers, data centres, network infrastructures, and procedures constantly running for authorisation, settlement, clearing, reconciliation, etc. Not to mention the costs for the construction, operation, maintenance and surveillance of ATMs, bank branches, vaults and related security systems, etc.
    • In a very well-written article, Conio's Guido D.Assori (who signed the very first SegWit transaction), says this is a feature, not a bug.
      Here is a courtesy translation of this specific part of the article, where he answers Paolo Attivissimo's accusation about bitcoin consuming all that energy to validate only 7 transactions per second.
      
      

      All this energy for 7 transactions per second?
      The third attack would be that Bitcoin would move 7 transactions per second, and that in a nutshell for a system of this kind even a few kilowatt hours would be wasted (curious, then, that Attivissimo remembers this after accepting Bitcoin donations for years, on his blog, of this big problem).
      Quickly: this number unfortunately arises from a profound misunderstanding of the real decoupling between the technological infrastructure called "blockchain" and the transfer of value named in Bitcoin.
      It's frequent, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.
      Premise: "It's a feature!", i.e. the size of the Blockchain is deliberately small.
      Being able to write on a blockchain must be a luxury, in order for it to remain decentralized, so that everyone, at any time and with relatively little effort, can autonomously verify the correctness of transactions on the network, and not just the large banking institutions.
      However, now at every moment of the day, on cryptocurrency exchanges, on custodial platforms, by means of pegged tokens, on sidechains, on Lighting Network, by means of CFDs, Bitcoins are intermediated and exchanged, or contracts that are traced back to their value , with varying degrees of enforcement.
      And this happens through a number of transactions that are much more than 7 per second, believe me! To expect the opposite would be like demanding that our morning coffee paid for at the bar be recorded by all the backups of all the nodes of all the interbank circuits in the Eurozone.
      So how many transactions, really?
      In general it is an unmeasurable number, and it will be less and less, the estimates will be more and more heuristic, also thanks to privacy preserving platforms.
      We can say, to make the general idea, that every transaction that takes place on an orderbook of any platform, which represents Bitcoin, can only exist thanks to the fact that, underneath, there is the Proof Of Work which, if necessary, allows the settlement of a precise state of a chain of transactions of indefinite length (my token goes to you, who gives it to him, who gives it to the other, who breaks it in three and gives it to the other, who collects 8 ). Don't you expect all the coins you exchange to end up noted down somewhere?
      Simply, people rely on intermediaries every day to exchange value in Bitcoin without using a blockchain directly.
      The global concept of decentralization is maintained, relocation increases with confidence on the last mile (not always! LN!) but the connecting element always remains the last, only, true, mandatory, digital ledger in which the compensation movements.
      Therefore, comparing the imaginary 7 transactions (which is a number that was good in 2013, today there are many more even on-chain) to the world's ability to transact Bitcoin, and linking it to PoW, is a bit like pretending that there are, at all times, a sufficient number of armored cars to move all the gold in all the vaults of the world that intend to exchange gold.
      
      Of course, that's not how it works.
      

      
      Bitcoin is not a payment system but a settlement system. Therefore, the comparison should not be made with payment circuits (credit cards), but with the various settlement layers (SWIFT, CHIPS) or Fedwire.
      
      On this particular aspect, please consider reading A Closer Look at the Environmental Impact of Bitcoin Mining
      
      

      
      Bitcoin is a settlement system, not a payments aggregator
      
      First things first. What is Bitcoin, and what is it not?
      
      Bitcoin is a settlement system like FedWire. It is not a payments aggregator like Visa. I constantly see Bitcoin compared to Visa, MasterCard, or PayPal. This is the primary source of mathematical atrocities whereby Bitcoin's overall electricity cost is divided by its transactions and then compared to something it's not. Energy use per settlement transaction is a nonsensical metric by which to judge Bitcoin's energy use.
      
      Just like the 800,000 or so daily FedWire transactions are not a good measure of the total amount of daily Dollar (USD) transactions, Bitcoin's 325,000 or so daily transactions are not a good measure of the total amount of daily bitcoin (BTC/XBT) transactions. This is because most bitcoin transactions are not visible. They take place inside the payment aggregation systems of exchanges, on the Lightning network, and yes, even inside of actual aggregators like PayPal, Square, or MasterCard. Only periodically are they settled onto the Bitcoin blockchain as visible transactions.
      
      Solutions like this are referred to as network layering. This is a tried and tested approach to separating casual retail transactions from heavier settlement transactions, and it is precisely how we already do things in the fiat monetary and payment systems. In such a system, the base layer, like FedWire (or Bitcoin), only acts as the final arbitrator of settlement transactions. Everything else, which is the vast majority of all transactions, happens in higher payment aggregation layers, which are often entirely different systems.
      
      In other words, Bitcoin is not a competitor to Visa, MasterCard or Paypal. Instead, Bitcoin is an independent monetary system that aggregators can make use of.
      
      Presenting Bitcoin's electricity consumption in terms of its daily number of settlement transactions is a red herring.
      
      

    • Similar considerations can be made for a comparison between gold and bitcoin as "digital gold", and then in addition to the costs for the safe custody of gold, those for its mining, refining, smelting, transport etc. should also be added. I challenge anyone to argue that all these can be considered particularly "green", but strangely I have never heard anyone complain and ask to ban gold for its environmental impact.
    
    

A very Good long-form by Nic Carter debunking a Bloomberg article on mining contains a summary of all the above arguments:

Noahbjectivity on Bitcoin Mining

The Bloomberg columnist Noah Smith has a lot of thoughts on Bitcoin. Some of them are really solid and engage with the reality of the protocol itself, which is rare for a member of the mainstream media circuit. He also discloses that he owns Bitcoin, which is impressive for an economist and an established member. So I'm pretty happy with him overall. I don't want this piece to be interpreted as a blanket critique of Noah's stance on Bitcoin. However, Noah's recent column in Bloomberg, Bitcoin Miners are on a Path to Self-Destruction, makes a few claims that warrant a response.
Noah's basic premise is that Bitcoin miners are effectively hogging the grid in the various places where they operate and risk getting banned entirely. Not only is the notion of a global coordinated ban on mining far-fetched, but Noah relies on a few claims that are dubious at best. Let's investigate.

A few "all-rounders" long form:

• Bitcoin Energy Consumption written by Paul Veradittakit, from Pantera Capital.
• 
  How Much Energy Does Bitcoin Actually Consume?, by Nic Carter.
• 
• Bitcoin is Key to an Abundant, Clean Energy Future by Square

Other Useful Links:

• Gold produced in 2020
• Estimations of CO2 emissions by gold mining
• Paris Agreement
• Environmental impact of gold
• China’s renewable energy

If you have any other suggestions, please point me in the right direction, and I will try to address every issue.



This post is eligible for my project:

Help me translate my best posts in your Local Board

I am a strong believer in the utility of local boards.
I am lucky enough to be able to express myself in at least a couple of languages, but I know this is not the case for everyone.
A lot of users post only in the local boards because of a variety of reasons  either language or cultural barriers, lack of interest or whatever other reason.
I personally know a lot of very good users (from the italian sections mainly, for obvious reason) who doesn't post in the international sections.

I think all those users they are missing a lot of good contents posted on the international (english) section or on other boards.

If you think you can help here, just visit the thread!

[1713886794]

1713886794

[coinycoiny]

Currently there are about 900 bitcoins generated each day by mining worth about $50 million dollars.

Miners must be spending at least half of that on electric so say 25 million a day.

Back of the envelope calculations but I bet I'm pretty close.

Since the world isn't 100% powered by green energy, any cut in mining will be pretty much a cut in hydro-carbons.

I bet you disagree with this though

[fillippone]

Currently there are about 900 bitcoins generated each day by mining worth about $50 million dollars.

Miners must be spending at least half of that on electric so say 25 million a day.

Back of the envelope calculations but I bet I'm pretty close.

Since the world isn't 100% powered by green energy, any cut in mining will be pretty much a cut in hydro-carbons.

I bet you disagree with this though

Indeed, I disagree.
First, I think you hugely overestimate the price miners pay for electricity.
Second, as many articles in my post demonstrated, the energy is not produced BECAUSE of the miners, but rather the other way round: there are miners because there is plenty of energy.
Third, this reasoning can be applied to everything, why only to mining? "Any cut in indoor lightning will be pretty much a cut in hydro-carbons", so why concentrate on mining?
Fourth, fossil fuels generated electricity is only a brief accident in history, soon, very soon, electricity will be entirely based on renewable energy.

[coinycoiny]

First, I think you hugely overestimate the price miners pay for electricity.

My assumption is based on if you can spend $1 and earn $2 then most people would spend more. If you have a more accurate method that says people wouldn't spend that then please share.

Second, as many articles in my post demonstrated, the energy is not produced BECAUSE of the miners, but rather the other way round: there are miners because there is plenty of energy.

Are you smoking pot? People mine to make money.

Third, this reasoning can be applied to everything, why only to mining? "Any cut in indoor lightning will be pretty much a cut in hydro-carbons", so why concentrate on mining?

It does apply to everything, that's why we use leds these days. Bitcoin uses thousands (or millions) more energy per transaction then visa/debit systems.

Fourth, fossil fuels generated electricity is only a brief accident in history, soon, very soon, electricity will be entirely based on renewable energy.

Well at least you got one point right. But its not there yet, and won't be for 10 years at least.

[Charles-Tim]

About the issue with China, miners in China according to 2020 statistics mined approximately 65% of bitcoin into circulation. I have noticed the use of coal to generate energy has been reducing since 2015.

The reduction in 2020 was so significant in a way that China are focusing more on nuclear, wind and solar energy which are clean source of energy.

           

The focus of the critics are on electricity producing carbon which contributes to global warming, while the electricity source that produces carbon are mostly from coal (thermal). But with the pictures above which is from Wikipedia, shows how coal energy production greatly reduced and substituted with clean sources.

But, about the renewable energy, I see this links usefully:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/report-76-crypto-miners-use-renewables-as-part-of-their-energy-mix
https://moneyweek.com/investments/alternative-finance/bitcoin/602678/bitcoin-energy-consumption

From the link, it is clear that over 70% of bitcoin mined are from renewable energy, but what I am still considering is that of hydroelectric, hydroelectric in the process of producing energy, I have read online how some hydroelectric power plants emit carbodioxide and methane into the environment, methane is a potent greenhouse gas that is 20 times more effective/potent than carbodioxide in contributing to global warming. Although, properly constructed ones have ways these gaeses are trapped and not released into atmosphere but wind, nuclear and solar as been the best clean source of energy, while wind and solar sources are on the rise in China.

[cryptoperkele]

I don't think that whataboutism is a way to combat this argument. Thing is that general public will most likely see this POW as a energy wasting giant. And after bitcoin hits 200k or 1M the attention doesn't exactly go away from us.

In fact at some point governments most likely set up a bigger tax for btc and that will launch another bear run. They will use enviromental reasons as an scapegoat and most likely try to tax btc to death, and not just btc, but all the cryptocurrencies, because the public doesn't know the difference or care.

[Charles-Tim]

I don't think that whataboutism is a way to combat this argument. Thing is that general public will most likely see this POW as a energy wasting giant. And after bitcoin hits 200k or 1M the attention doesn't exactly go away from us.

The critics will not see how mining industries benefiting, employing workers also miner manufacturing companies employ workers and provide more employment. They will not check the fact that bitcoin mining generates energy, in a way miners mine bitcoin, profit from the mining and pay their electricity bill so electricity company will benefit in a way they will also employ more workers. In that case, I do not think bitcoin waste energy so far miners profit from it and pay electricity bill. If it is said that bitcoin waste energy? That is 100% wrong. If it is said that bitcoin energy production also produces carbodioxide which can contribute to global warming, that is yes, but know that miners are moving towards the ones that will not produce green house gases, miners are moving towards solar and wind as the source of energy to avoid future complains.

[hatshepsut93]

I don't think that whataboutism is a way to combat this argument. Thing is that general public will most likely see this POW as a energy wasting giant. And after bitcoin hits 200k or 1M the attention doesn't exactly go away from us.

I partially agree with it. Things like Netflix or video games and other entertainment brings happines to billions. Bitcoin users are counted by tens of millions and many of them are only into Bitcoin for investing.

I personally think Bitcoin's ecological damage is simply insignificant, if Bitcoin mining stopped tomorrow, the difference in temperature change in decades would be far below the margin of error. So why ban it? Better focus on fossil fuels, agriculture and other big polluters. Fighting Bitcoin is a waste of time.

[rosenbauer02]

With great development and industrialization also comes with great environmental disaster but not to bitcoin. As what the OP had shows that there are many environmental disaster that industrialization and development has brought.

I agree to OP that when it comes to production relatively like plastics produce too much waste that most organization had been too concern. The question is that are they doing something that could reduce the use of these plastics? The answer is YES they had done something but the result is not visible and still plastics produce a lot of waste and after being use is becoming troublesome. Actually one of the worst environmental disaster that has been cause.

This is why those environmental friendly called people could be sometimes be more like hypocrite people. They tend to scrutinize every development like bitcoin and then later on began to silence with some sort of reason and that is corruption. They like to attack to get attention and then they will ask for money to for them to make their silence. I know most critics has done strategy like this in which they called AC/DC. "Attack Collect, Defend Collect" and these groups usually use publicity stunts to get more attention to get paid. The more attention they get the high amount of money they will ask for their silence.

[Kittygalore]

I do believe that this problem with energy sources is problem of both sides, I mean miners can choose to invest in renewable energy like solar or wind but they chose to go the fossil fuel route, but if the energy sector doesn't change how they are getting their energy source then the cycle will continue. The only environmental disaster here is that we are still using fossil fuels and other polluting energy sources when the technology to make an efficient and environmentally friendly energy source is available already.

[aoluain]

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?

[coinycoiny]

Sometimes I feel like an atheist walking into a church.

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

[PointHope]

Just keep it simple.
Bitcoin is inherently Green Energy.

https://youtu.be/E5gXD40OHcg

[ABCbits]

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

Sometimes I feel like an atheist walking into a church.

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

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

[ranochigo]

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

Televisions, aeroplanes,Christmas lights, plastic, all require enormous amounts of energy to be produced and used: what is the amount of energy considered excessive to produce them? Why is this calculation done for Bitcoin and not for other goods?
-snip-

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.

[ModelT]

Sometimes I feel like an atheist walking into a church.

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

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5323833.0
  
  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)

[masterrex]

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.

[worle1bm]

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.

Accusation
The bitcoin network consumes as much electricity as XXX

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.

Accusation
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.

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.

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.

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.

[kryptqnick]

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.

[Lucius]

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.