Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument

[ModelT]

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.

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.   

[ranochigo]

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Sterbens]

It turns out that recently there have been new innovations about mining with wind and solar power sources, I found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5325045.msg56602987#msg56602987

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

[Lucius]

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 ...

[Fesatmas]

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.

source image

[bryant.coleman]

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 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:

A single bitcoin transaction has a carbon footprint of 359.04 kgCO2 – equivalent to the carbon footprint of 795,752 VISA transactions or 59,840 hours of watching YouTube

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.

[ranochigo]

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.

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.

[Ozero]

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.

[fillippone]

the more difficult it is to mine and decode increasingly complex math, and requires quite expensive hardware.

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.

[pixie85]

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.

[Plutosky]

https://www.nickgrossman.xyz/2021/bitcoin-as-battery/ 

[arulbero]

https://medium.com/lunar-ventures/bitcoin-is-not-a-battery-it-is-a-sink-852db9669f20

[Vishnu.Reang]

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.

If the Bitcoin miners want to go for green energy, then I welcome that step. But as of now, I don't think that there is any need for us to worry about these stupid arguments. First of all, according to the critics Bitcoin mining consumes 0.6% of all the electricity generation in the world. Out of that, a large fraction may be from coal-fired thermal power plants. Is this 0.6% such a big number? Why these people are focusing so much on this 0.6%, and ignoring the remaining 99.4%?

It is time for Bitcoiners to take a strong stance against these propaganda mongers. No one is providing electricity for free. Bitcoin miners are paying for the electricity and if these people have any issue then they should take it with those who work in electricity generation. It is like blaming someone who own a car for all the global warming that is occurring.

[fillippone]

A very Good longform by Nic Carter debunking himself a Bloomberg article on mining:

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 a member of the establishment. 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.

Recommended spending 20 minutes reading it.

[Lucius]

Definitely interesting reading from which I learned some new things such as that in addition to the "environmental disaster" argument there is a new one for which BTC can be blamed - and that is including the production of mining devices which causes a shortage of chips that cause great damage to the car and mobile industry

As it turns out, the way foundries like TSMC (the foundry Bitmain relies on) operate, is that they tier their customers. They don’t optimize just for revenue, but consistent demand. They treat their Tier I customers much better, and give them privileged allocations to foundry space. Bitmain, the largest ASIC manufacturer, is not a Tier I customer. They have to settle for scraps. According to Big Al, the chip shortages are mainly due to a skyrocketing demand for consumer electronics and cloud during Covid (as everyone was stuck at home with nothing to do). Ultimately, Bitcoin miners represent a small fraction of TSMC revenue — around 1% according to Bernstein. The notion of a marginal, Tier II industry being responsible for chip shortages is fanciful.

A very interesting fact is the sales of mining machines in the past 2 quarters, which shows that 60% of sales ended outside China, and that customers are mostly located in North America, where electricity is on average cheaper than in China.

The conclusion of all this is that a lot has started to change when it comes to BTC mining, and that everyone is looking for alternatives not only in the locations, but also how to make mining as efficient and cleaner as possible.

[fillippone]

Another very interesting longform by Christopher Bendiksen, Head of Research at CoinShares.
This article put some focus on the fact Bitcoin is a settlement system like FedWire, not a payment system like VISA.


A Closer Look at the Environmental Impact of Bitcoin Mining

• Bitcoin (BTC) is a settlement system like FedWire, not a payments aggregator like Visa
• It uses energy to deliver that function independently of central authorities
• Global energy production continues to rely on fossil fuels
• However, cryptocurrency mining is mobile and global — constantly seeking out the cheapest available electricity, often stranded renewables
• Bitcoin mining has a substantial role, both in the present and the future, in eliminating waste and in load balancing power systems based on intermittent renewable energy
  

Particularly, on the above note about the difference between a payment system and a settlement layer:

Bitcoin is a settlement system, not a payments aggregator

First things first. What is Bitcoin[1] 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, and this is the main 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[2] or so daily transactions are not a good measure of the total amount of daily bitcoin (BTC/XBT) transactions. 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 exactly 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, and that is the vast majority of all transactions, happen in higher payment aggregation layers, which are often entirely different systems.

In other words, Bitcoin is not a competitor to Visa, MasterCard or Paypal. 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.

[CarnagexD]

Very well said. I'm honestly getting tired of people being very misinformed about bitcoin telling things like it's polluting the environment when millions of dollars are being spent into burning fossil fuels, mining oil, mining gold and basically all other non renewable energy resources that are much more polluting to the environment than bitcoin. Plastics, the food industry, phone production, I can literally go all day here talking about industries that are much more damaging to the environment than bitcoin mining.

[fillippone]

Very interesting, long paper about the carbon footprint associated with Bitcoin mining in China.
A good scientific paper, with some objective data.

Policy assessments for the carbon emission flows and sustainability of Bitcoin blockchain operation in China

Abstract
The growing energy consumption and associated carbon emission of Bitcoin mining could potentially undermine global sustainable efforts. By investigating carbon emission flows of Bitcoin blockchain operation in China with a simulation-based Bitcoin blockchain carbon emission model, we find that without any policy interventions, the annual energy consumption of the Bitcoin blockchain in China is expected to peak in 2024 at 296.59 Twh and generate 130.50 million metric tons of carbon emission correspondingly. Internationally, this emission output would exceed the total annualized greenhouse gas emission output of the Czech Republic and Qatar. Domestically, it ranks in the top 10 among 182 cities and 42 industrial sectors in China. In this work, we show that moving away from the current punitive carbon tax policy to a site regulation policy which induces changes in the energy consumption structure of the mining activities is more effective in limiting carbon emission of Bitcoin blockchain operation.

The view is the usual one, but at least the gathered data have been put in the right perspective.

[Lorence.xD]

Very well said. I'm honestly getting tired of people being very misinformed about bitcoin telling things like it's polluting the environment when millions of dollars are being spent into burning fossil fuels, mining oil, mining gold and basically all other non renewable energy resources that are much more polluting to the environment than bitcoin. Plastics, the food industry, phone production, I can literally go all day here talking about industries that are much more damaging to the environment than bitcoin mining.

The problem is that it won't be able to get through the thick heads of the people that are advocating that bitcoin as a whole is a contributor to the pollution. Maybe the only way to stop all this nonsense is to continue educating people and ignoring all the FUDs.

[fillippone]

The problem is that it won't be able to get through the thick heads of the people that are advocating that bitcoin as a whole is a contributor to the pollution. Maybe the only way to stop all this nonsense is to continue educating people and ignoring all the FUDs.

This is exactly the aim of this thread. Raise the awareness of the unbiased knowledge, letting everyone decide based upon real information, not distorced, word of mouth myths.