Big money after "sustainability"

[paxmao]

Industries that are not sustainable, which in most dictionaries nowadays means carbon emissions, are loosing the investors good graces. These activities are considered at risk, since regulations in the future will likely mean that they will have to change or reformulate or undergo serious pressure from regulators.

There has been plenty of literature about bitcoin effects in the environment. While I agree that bitcoin is probably less damaging to the environment than 20 thousand Visa employees commuting to work, there is still plenty to do about the farms and the energy they consume. It may be possible to support green mining over others?

[milewilda]

Industries that are not sustainable, which in most dictionaries nowadays means carbon emissions, are loosing the investors good graces. These activities are considered at risk, since regulations in the future will likely mean that they will have to change or reformulate or undergo serious pressure from regulators.

There has been plenty of literature about bitcoin effects in the environment. While I agree that bitcoin is probably less damaging to the environment than 20 thousand Visa employees commuting to work, there is still plenty to do about the farms and the energy they consume. It may be possible to support green mining over others?

Not really that much in concern about mining activity which does make out some great affect on the eonvironment just as those shitty regulators trying to push on? They've bee throwing lots of shitty reasons that mining is indeed harmful to environtment witihout even trying to look on other old things
which did really make out more emmissions or do something more harmful on ecosystem.It is really just they are trying to push out some issues
which is actually not really that too strong to accuse on.

[hyudien]

Quite interesting, I thought the same thing, when energy consumption continues to burn electricity resources, even with mining using solar power there is one thing that has not been touched or has not been touched, it comes to the system of using green which is far relatively environmentally friendly. Could this be an idea to be brought to the mining company court. I once discovered that trees generate electricity just like the Italian Institute of Technology
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181212093308.htm

Researchers have discovered that living plants are literally 'green' power source: they can generate, by a single leaf, more than 150 Volts, enough to simultaneously power 100 LED light bulbs.

or it could be from several journals published in 2019 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332947475_TREES_A_GENERATOR_OF_ELECTRICITY_IN_FUTURE

[arallmuus]

It may be possible to support green mining over others?

It might be but there is no reason to do that if coal power plants are still widely used as well as some other emission sources. Compared to the other emission sources, the emission emitted from bitcoin mining is way lower. There could be some other alternative though but solar power could be one of it and there have been alot of people that actually implemented this instead of just using electricity from powerplants

[Hydrogen]

Most aren't aware of the key political divide hinging on fossil fuels and climate change.

One of the biggest financiers for the republican party in the USA, is big oil. When Donald Trump was elected President in 2016. I think one of the first options he put on the table was cutting tax credits for electric vehicles in america. On behalf of big oil. Years ago, Sarah Palin was famously quoted for her "drill baby, drill" comment about drilling for oil in north america. Big oil and the republican party have been in bed together for many decades. One key reason why climate change has such a polarizing and dividing influence on america.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the biggest supporters of climate change policy are democrats. Al Gore (democrat) won a nobel peace prize for his slideshow on climate change in 2006. Obama (democrat) was one of the loudest voices for supporting the climate change based paris accords. Today Joe Biden (democrat) is one of the most vocal supporters for anti climate change policy.

Sustainability, carbon footprints, fossil fuels, climate change, global warming, the green movement, carbon taxes are all aligned across the political party divide in the united states. Which appears to be one of the most neglected and unacknowledged aspects to it.

[magneto]

Industries that are not sustainable, which in most dictionaries nowadays means carbon emissions, are loosing the investors good graces. These activities are considered at risk, since regulations in the future will likely mean that they will have to change or reformulate or undergo serious pressure from regulators.

There has been plenty of literature about bitcoin effects in the environment. While I agree that bitcoin is probably less damaging to the environment than 20 thousand Visa employees commuting to work, there is still plenty to do about the farms and the energy they consume. It may be possible to support green mining over others?

You have to also consider that this comes with some degree of hype with it.

Not all "sustainable" companies are actually doing much better than what traditional companies are doing. They may simply be better at cooking the numbers/their books to reflect a much prettier version of reality.

I'd definitely include ESG as a part of a portfolio, but I would not invest all of my portfolio into ESG stocks.

[cabron]

Most aren't aware of the key political divide hinging on fossil fuels and climate change.

One of the biggest financiers for the republican party in the USA, is big oil. When Donald Trump was elected President in 2016. I think one of the first options he put on the table was cutting tax credits for electric vehicles in america. On behalf of big oil. Years ago, Sarah Palin was famously quoted for her "drill baby, drill" comment about drilling for oil in north america. Big oil and the republican party have been in bed together for many decades. One key reason why climate change has such a polarizing and dividing influence on america.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the biggest supporters of climate change policy are democrats. Al Gore (democrat) won a nobel peace prize for his slideshow on climate change in 2006. Obama (democrat) was one of the loudest voices for supporting the climate change based paris accords. Today Joe Biden (democrat) is one of the most vocal supporters for anti climate change policy.

Sustainability, carbon footprints, fossil fuels, climate change, global warming, the green movement, carbon taxes are all aligned across the political party divide in the united states. Which appears to be one of the most neglected and unacknowledged aspects to it.

All of a sudden the changes in the environment are blamed on carbon and what we all did in the past while the countries making money out of producing products and at the same time carbon are becoming wealthy.  So why would India, Russia, and China comply with this Cop20 if it's thier time to become rich?  

For thousands of years, humans had been drilling thousands of feet below to run the economy. Now with the hype of climate change, it's going to change?

China will not like that since they have gotten a huge deposits in the South China Sea. Once they start drilling that region, China or Asia will be the center of trade and it will take a war before that will happen when other parts of the world does not like China as they are demonized by the media.

[Darker45]

I can only hope that all these talks of sustainability, which, again, is now construed more as environment-friendly, are true. Unfortunately, they don't seem so. They're all talking one thing and doing quite another, governments and private companies alike. Much of these talks relating to this kind of sustainability are mere posturing, something they do just so that it can be said that they care and that they are doing something. I don't even trust the regulators themselves.

[Uang_kartal]

Talking about an effect of an ongoing agenda or project, it cannot be separated from the role of bitcoin for the economy and population literature. The connection is very close.. Do employees who use visas enter the income or movement of bitcoin?

there is another way to go green and smooth.. i agree with you bro..
In your opinion, what are the criteria for the carbon effect bro?

[yhiaali3]

I don't know why all the hype about Bitcoin polluting the environment, the problem of global warming existed even before the invention of Bitcoin and it still exists today!!! Despite all the conferences about protecting the planet from global warming, the reality has not changed. The reason is simply that this is all political propaganda to appear decent in front of the media, while all governments blame Bitcoin as if it is the main responsible for global warming. I wonder if anyone Industrial countries stop polluting the environment? I also wonder if they used clean energy instead of oil despite their enormous economic potential?!!

[Gozie51]

I don't know why all the hype about Bitcoin polluting the environment, the problem of global warming existed even before the invention of Bitcoin and it still exists today!!! Despite all the conferences about protecting the planet from global warming, the reality has not changed. The reason is simply that this is all political propaganda to appear decent in front of the media, while all governments blame Bitcoin as if it is the main responsible for global warming. I wonder if anyone Industrial countries stop polluting the environment? I also wonder if they used clean energy instead of oil despite their enormous economic potential?!!

I wonder myself if green house emission has not been with us in a long time even with the past American President George Bush. He also was having policy about the challenges of ozone deplation. In fact like you said every manufacturing company, factory or gadgets and machine burning petroleum/fuel emit carbon dioxide and that diffuses into the air to the walls of the ozone. Cars and trucks emit also, gas flaring and many more so bitcoin is not going to be hanged as the only factor.

[Kakmakr]

The same trend is happening in Europe at the moment... https://news.bitcoin.com/swedish-regulators-call-for-eu-ban-on-crypto-mining-power-company-defends-industry/  (There are a huge "Green" push for more environmentally friendly alternatives across all industries)

You also see a push towards "PoS" Alt coins, because Elon Musk made some noise about Bitcoin mining not being environmentally friendly.. so Alt coin developers are trying to use that as a selling point to push their shitcoins. 

[Ucy]

If you rate companies and people by how they actually contribute to the environment issues on earth, I think most centralized companies will rank higher even if they start using so called green energy. Bitcoin Network is actually worth powering with huge energy considering it's good principles as a True cryptocurrency & global reach, but "green energy" powering evil or immoral companies will continue to power the evil and contribute to environmental problems.

I still believe Bitcoin should use clean renewable energy in efficient and decentralized manner.

[oHnK]

The condition of Bitcoin which is always associated with environmental issues is the only side that is easiest to make a bad impact even though if we openly compare Bitcoin with Fiat, we can judge which one has a worse impact from all sides.  For decades I have lived, I will never be rich from fiat.  Working 24 hours for fiat and keeping it in the bank won't make me rich.  Even though it is accompanied by interest such as interest on deposits, it is not comparable to inflation which increases every year.  The interesting thing is that in just a few years of being involved in the crypto market, I had a positive impact that far outweighs the negative impact they speak of.

[paxmao]

...

Researchers have discovered that living plants are literally 'green' power source: they can generate, by a single leaf, more than 150 Volts, enough to simultaneously power 100 LED light bulbs.

...

Apart from the feasibility of this, we would need to check the basic math: 150 Volts is a measure of potential, voltage. You might mean 150W which is quite unbelievable. Also, even if it is 150W it would only lit around 10 low power led lamps. The green energy from the trees is real and it is in fact used in the form of biofuels. Even the olives bones are a combustible of choice in many applications.

[stompix]

While I agree that bitcoin is probably less damaging to the environment than 20 thousand Visa employees commuting to work, there is still plenty to do about the farms and the energy they consume.

If all the farms in the world consume at least (assuming maximum efficiency miners) 40Twh a year while the NYC metro system consumes 1.8 Twh while helping 4.3 millions commuting every day I think that you need to throw a lot more employees, maybe add the entire Chinese army?  

It might be but there is no reason to do that if coal power plants are still widely used as well as some other emission sources. Compared to the other emission sources, the emission emitted from bitcoin mining is way lower.

Never gets old:

Bitcoin mining company Marathon Patent Group has announced plans to build a specialized Bitcoin data center in Montana. The facility will use cheap coal-fired electricity, backed by utility Beowulf Energy, which will take a stake in Marathon. Marathon will pay $0.028/kWh for the energy, which is about a quarter of the average US domestic rate of around $0.11/kWh.

[Poker Player]

Industries that are not sustainable, which in most dictionaries nowadays means carbon emissions, are loosing the investors good graces. These activities are considered at risk, since regulations in the future will likely mean that they will have to change or reformulate or undergo serious pressure from regulators.

There has been plenty of literature about bitcoin effects in the environment. While I agree that bitcoin is probably less damaging to the environment than 20 thousand Visa employees commuting to work, there is still plenty to do about the farms and the energy they consume. It may be possible to support green mining over others?

I have bolded two parts of what you say that seem to me to mark what will be our difference of opinion here. I believe that the market trend, not only in terms of Bitcon mining, is going to be to use more and more energy such as wind or solar, to the detriment of coal or oil. But I believe that this is the trend that will continue due to consumer demand and investor requirements. On the other hand, I suppose you put more emphasis on government regulations.

[fiulpro]

Industries that are not sustainable, which in most dictionaries nowadays means carbon emissions, are loosing the investors good graces. These activities are considered at risk, since regulations in the future will likely mean that they will have to change or reformulate or undergo serious pressure from regulators.

There has been plenty of literature about bitcoin effects in the environment. While I agree that bitcoin is probably less damaging to the environment than 20 thousand Visa employees commuting to work, there is still plenty to do about the farms and the energy they consume. It may be possible to support green mining over others?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion therefore even though the Government or anyone suggests green mining at the end of the day, it's the decision of the mining company at the end. Small miners are not going to be able to invest in these green renewable options since they are a bit pricey to start but in the long term they give good returns and are good for the environment as well.

Most countries have good resources, for example when we take an example of countries around the equator they can generally use solar energy in contrast to countries around the tectonic plates which can use geothermal energy as well. Therefore it's a choice where you have to take an extra step. Also as we see Sweden already said they might be against bitcoin mining and there they have the perfect environment for mining as well, cheap electricity but at the end with the increasing prices for everything they might have to ban it. So green, renewable sources of energy might be the way to go.

[SquallLeonhart]

The same trend is happening in Europe at the moment... https://news.bitcoin.com/swedish-regulators-call-for-eu-ban-on-crypto-mining-power-company-defends-industry/  (There are a huge "Green" push for more environmentally friendly alternatives across all industries)

You also see a push towards "PoS" Alt coins, because Elon Musk made some noise about Bitcoin mining not being environmentally friendly.. so Alt coin developers are trying to use that as a selling point to push their shitcoins. 

"Spending energy" is not a cause for the world to go bad, and not spending energy is not "green" neither. The method that you produce that energy is the reason how you become green. So, let's assume you spend 10 megawats but you take it from oil, then you are hurting the world, let’s assume you spend 100 megawats but you get it from solar, that is still green.

So, miners spending energy is not the reason why the world is going bad, it is the bad methods that they get those energy causing the world to get worse. All you have to do is create a ton of green energy sources, solar panels, wind turbines, hydro and many other things like that in order to make it clean, then spend all of it if you want to that’s fine, nobody could tell you not to spend the energy that you created, you even should so that storage doesn't become a problem. This way you could help the world a lot, and still end up using it.

[TheNineClub]

More general interest in BTC and in crypto will drive innovation forward. No reason to think that some improvements won't be possible in that area. The first solutions were implemented because they were the easiest and most cost-effective, but as BTC evolves, so will this. I'd say sustainable mining is one of the biggest obstacles that BTC is facing.