A simple proposal for an environmental-friendly regulation for Bitcoin mining

[d5000]

Bitcoin's Proof of Work has been seriously criticized in the past years for its high energy consumption. While the CBECI index from the University of Cambridge is most likely overestimating the electricity consumption, it cannot be negated that the problem would be substantial if this electricity was generated majorly from fossil fuels, primarily from coal (although numbers are disputed*, see below).

Some jurisdictions, primarily the EU, have considered severe restrictions for Proof of Work cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. The EU proposal, which was rejected in early April, aimed at banning trading and other services for PoW currencies for EU companies, which would have forced all EU exchanges to delist Bitcoin (and other PoW currencies like Litecoin and Monero).

Often in the justifications for the regulation Proof of Stake is mentioned as a "better" and "more environmental friendly" consensus method. However, PoS has a number of severe disadvantages, and relies on what's called "weak subjectivity", what means that the consensus is never completely objective and could be theoretically "faked" with sophisticated methods. It also favours centralization in much more direct ways than PoW.

So a "PoW ban" or even a "PoW restriction" would threaten one of Bitcoin's main innovations.

But instead of banning or restricting PoW currencies like Bitcoin, there is actually a much more promising alternative: Large-scale miners should have to demonstrate real carbon neutrality.

This could mean miners could have two alternatives:

1) Mine disconnected from the grid with exclusively own renewable electricity. (For example they could use a solar park or wind turbines, and store the energy accordingly).

2) Mine connected to the grid with a "100% renewable energy tariff", but ensuring they don't rely on fossil electricity in cases of scarcity of renewable electricity. This could be achieved a) powering off the mining equipment in these situations, or b) investing directly in new renewable generation. Miners would have to be equipped with smart meters, so the authorities could ensure they obey these rules.

The word real is emphasized because it wouldn't be enough to simply buy CO2 certificates (like some experts have proposed); they'd have to directly contribute to carbon-neutrality.

This kind of regulation would have at least three effects which would help combat climate change:

1) it solves the problem of miners competing with households for renewable electricity, as this wouldn't be allowed anymore (they can only mine connected to the grid as long as there is no renewables' scarcity, i.e. they can use "surplus" electricity),
2) provide a strong incentive for economies of scale in the renewable generation and storage industry,
3) provide a strong incentive to move to places where renewable energy is abundant (Sahara desert, some regions in South America like Patagonia, Brazil and the Altiplano, North American desert regions, Scandinavia/Iceland)

Feedback is much appreciated! The idea is to create an article about this topic in several languages (above all, EU languages as there the discussion about a de facto PoW ban hasn't stopped) to contribute to the discussion in a constructive way and preventing catastrophic decisions by politicians, without negating the problem.

*Estimations diverge, a recent one from the Bitcoin Mining Council claims 58% is coming from renewables, but this would be still 42% from fossil fuels and (probably on a much smaller scale) nuclear energy.

[1714030295]

1714030295

[1714030295]

1714030295

[pooya87]

I never understand why users of electricity should be criticized about how that electricity is produced. It is the producers' problem not the consumers. For example you never see anyone bashing the average Joe for using electricity that was created by burning fossil fuel! Or bash one of the factories that are not only wasting a lot of electricity but also polluting the environment in a million different ways!

The point is that it would be naive to think countries that are using the term "ban PoW" are concerned about environment or are banning "PoW". The truth is that they are banning "decentralized" bitcoin that they can not control. I assure you if bitcoin wasn't even using a single megawatt of electricity they still would want to ban it.

With all that said, it is good to move to greener energies and try to preserve the environment but let's not lose sight of what the real problem is, it is the authoritarians being scared of the slow loss of control.

[Kakmakr]

The problem in many countries are not the high consumption of electricity by PoW mining, but rather the local governments incompetency to provide enough power to their citizens. In some countries where Coal mining are being used as the primary source of electricity, the government gave State entities the monopoly over electricity generation.

So you will find that only a small percentage of "Green" power are outsourced to Private companies to allow them to generate electricity from other methods. (Wind/Solar etc...) Those governments want to have control over Power generation, because it provides work for corrupt officials and also opportunities for those officials to get Billions of Dollars in tenders. (where they receive kickbacks and bribes to give those tenders to specific companies that are willing to pay these bribes)

So this is not going to work in all countries, because the governments are corrupt and they are not going to allow for "Popup" Green projects 

[davis196]

3) provide a strong incentive to move to places where renewable energy is abundant (Sahara desert, some regions in South America like Patagonia, Brazil and the Altiplano, North American desert regions, Scandinavia/Iceland)

Renewable energy being abundant in the Sahara Desert?Are you kidding me?
Are there any big solar power plants in the Sahara desert?
Do you know why there aren't any big power plants in the Sahara desert?
1.Nobody wants to work in the Sahara Desert.Such big solar power plants will have to be maintained by people.
2.The solar panels will have to be cleaned from all the dust on a daily basis.There is a lot of dust in the desert and there are desert storms as well.Good luck making a solar power plant in the Sahara desert.

Anyway,I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over again,when it comes to this topic.
All this "environmental-friendly regulation of Bitcoin mining" is a big pile of s*it.

[Wiwo]

The topic of Bitcoin mining energy consumption is becoming a boring topic to me, this is because the EU who is in the frontline on the proof of the work ban Crusades has failed to properly investigate the actual energy consumption and the negative impact of POW Model of mining on the environment and another point that makes this so-called pow ban crusade look childish to me in the inclusion of a ban on the trading of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies that use the proof of work method, this leads me to ask this novice question, does Bitcoin trading consume electricity and what is the direct connection between trading and high energy consumption or negative environmental impact?
This and many more are questions that need urgent answers from the EU authorities, in most countries like the US energy generation and distribution is the sole responsibility of the government and the consumer of those energy pay bills on the amount of energy consumed which generate huge revenue for the government and in this way the government sees energy consumption as a way of income generation for the government so mining farms contribute largely to the revenue generated from energy sales since Bitcoin mining consume high energy. This whole energy consumption and environmental factors raised by the EU as it relates to proof of work (pos) mechanisms to me look like corrupt policy aimed at weakening the overall dominance of the Bitcoin algorithm and giving support to a less trusted and centrally aimed proof of stake algorithm. This move trick is a sponsored politically motivated policy to me other than environmental issues because there is no correlation between the two main subject matters which are a ban on (pow mining and trading of currency that uses POW)

[mocacinno]

Apart from the other issues raised above, i also wonder how you'd do this on a technical level without touching the core values of bitcoin.

If a miner (wether it be a big or a small one) finds a block header whose sha256d hash is under the current target, but he/she hasn't registered with some sort of central authority (that verifies the "green" status), will other nodes be forced by this central authority to reject the perfectly valid block? How can you do this in a way that does not introduce any form of centralisation, control, censorship,... and in a way that the "new" consensus rules are accepted by the majority of the network?

As it currently stands, a miner can mine completely anonymous. He only needs the block header of the previous block (and maybe some unconfirmed transactions, but this is not completely necessary), he does not need to verify himself or let the network know he is mining... Only when he solves a block, he has to broadcast it (but the other nodes never know if he was the one that solved the block, or if he's merely relaying it).

[franky1]

If a miner (wether it be a big or a small one) finds a block header whose sha256d hash is under the current target, but he/she hasn't registered with some sort of central authority (that verifies the "green" status), will other nodes be forced by this central authority to reject the perfectly valid block? How can you do this in a way that does not introduce any form of centralisation, control, censorship,... and in a way that the "new" consensus rules are accepted by the majority of the network?

no.. what would happen should any government decide to regulate mining .. is much more simple.
any asic mining farm mining in a residential area using more the X kw/h would be fined/asics confiscated/facility shutdown/facility taken off the grid
any large asic mining farm using x MW/h in a region reliant on fossil fuel will be punished in the same way

many countries are not trying to control the flow of block confirmations/rejections as that near impossible. instead they will follow the flow of electricity and punish the asic farms in the physical world. via fines/shutdowns of their equipment

[d5000]

The point is that it would be naive to think countries that are using the term "ban PoW" are concerned about environment or are banning "PoW". The truth is that they are banning "decentralized" bitcoin that they can not control. I assure you if bitcoin wasn't even using a single megawatt of electricity they still would want to ban it.

Even if this was true (I believe there are two factions: authoritarian/"old-banking"-lobbyist politicians, and actual eco-idealists with poor formation in computing/blockchain - this proposal is aimed at the second group), then it would be strategically intelligent to make proposals which actually achieve the goals they claim to achieve with their "PoW-ban" regulation ideas. A mining regulation requiring them to be carbon-neutral would act directly against the carbon footprint of the industry, while a ban would not (because crypto industry would simply move into other countries, and in Europe you would trade wBTC instead). So it would be the better alternative for everybody ... with the exception of the authoritarians.

Renewable energy being abundant in the Sahara Desert?Are you kidding me?
Are there any big solar power plants in the Sahara desert?

You're wrong: Ouarzazate power plant

1.Nobody wants to work in the Sahara Desert.

There are actually people living there already. (Or: If you go a little bit east, you have places like Dubai with a similar climate. It's not necessary to go into the deepest Central Sahara, southern Morocco/Tunisia is also ok.)

2.The solar panels will have to be cleaned from all the dust on a daily basis.

True, but there are solutions for that, there's also a big solar plant in the Atacama desert in Chile. Anyway, I think the Sahara desert isn't the ideal place (the South American Altiplano is better, for example, due to lower temperatures) but a good one close to Europe, which has some advantages (fast internet connections nearby, etc.).

All this "environmental-friendly regulation of Bitcoin mining" is a big pile of s*it.

So you prefer a Bitcoin ban?

Apart from the other issues raised above, i also wonder how you'd do this on a technical level without touching the core values of bitcoin.

This is not a technical proposal so the Bitcoin software would not be affected at all. It's an idea how governments, if they're really concerned with environment and climate, could regulate the mining sector in their jurisdictions. Instead of outright banning it like China did, this is a possibility to make it 100% carbon neutral, without affecting the operation and decentralization of Bitcoin at all.

[Welsh]

While I don't agree with the largely unjustified criticism that Bitcoin has received with its energy consumption, at least when you compare it to other industries which are using a lot more. I do agree that we probably should be looking to do something about it regardless, since it not only reducing the chance of a ban, but it also will increase adoption, since our world is definitely going down a certain path, where being green is seen as a good thing, and people automatically support you more if you look like you care about the environment. I use look like, since I do believe a lot of the companies are using it as a marketing tactic rather than actually caring.

Anyhow, would this be something that you believe would be required to be proven before being allowed to mine? The only issue I see with something like this, is largely the problem of centralisation, which obviously goes against what Bitcoin stands for. We would need a central authority to verify that the miners are using green energy, but also they would need to do it without bias, and would actually need to be able to verify it. How do you verify that you're using green energy? Would it be photos which could easily be manipulated or would it be a in person visit, which could potentially anonymise anyone wishing to stay anonymous.

While, on the surface level I think something like this would be good for adoption, it opens a can of worms in terms of privacy, centralisation, and also probably prices out a lot of people, which further increases centralisation to the richer miners.

This is not a technical proposal so the Bitcoin software would not be affected at all. It's an idea how governments, if they're really concerned with environment and climate, could regulate the mining sector in their jurisdictions. Instead of outright banning it like China did, this is a possibility to make it 100% carbon neutral, without affecting the operation and decentralization of Bitcoin at all.

Right, going by this it wouldn't be a requirement to mine. The only problem with that, is are miners that can't afford the necessary equipment to use green energy, going to go through all that expense just to prove to a government, that they likely aren't big fans of. I don't think so, either this becomes a requirement, which has its own downfalls highlighted above or miners just carry on how they are due to the expense.

[pooya87]

You're wrong: Ouarzazate power plant

I'm not an expert in this field but I'm not sure if we can call these plants "green". They are burning 19 ton of gasoil per day (stats are from 8 years ago) and produce lots of Sulfur dioxide which is far worse air pollutant than CO2!

[BlackHatCoiner]

What's the purpose of this? To act in accordance with politicians, whose intentions are clearly against the ideals of bitcoin, and to zip the lips of the greenwashed who're misinformed of the way bitcoin works? I don't care.

Have we observed the same attitude towards the banking system, which is far more environmentally damaging? No. They're ignorant when it comes to JPMorgan, CITI, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and 32 others who've poured $2.7 trillion into fossil fuels and are responsible for most of the deforestation and the climate destruction, but hey, bitcoin? Shut that thing down at all costs. What a hang-up, gosh. 

Bitcoin has proven to help in reducing CO2 emissions. Gazprom Neft[1], in West Siberia, mines bitcoin instead of flaring the unwanted gas to the atmosphere. Furthermore, Crusoe Energy[2] uses the natural gas, which was intended to be flared, to power mining rigs. Ultimately, bitcoin can be used to deploy the use of renewable sources and to help transiting to a cleaner and more resilient electricity grid, while playing the role of energy storage at the same time[3].

[1] https://jpt.spe.org/gazprom-neft-mines-bitcoin-as-an-alternative-to-flaring-unwanted-gas
[2] https://cointelegraph.com/magazine/2021/04/13/north-american-crypto-miners-prepare-to-challenge-chinas-dominance
[3] https://assets.ctfassets.net/2d5q1td6cyxq/5mRjc9X5LTXFFihIlTt7QK/e7bcba47217b60423a01a357e036105e/BCEI_White_Paper.pdf

[Lucius]

But instead of banning or restricting PoW currencies like Bitcoin, there is actually a much more promising alternative: Large-scale miners should have to demonstrate real carbon neutrality.

Didn't a study in the US demonstrate just that a few months ago? Perhaps this study is not good enough for European bureaucrats who are so intelligent as to advocate a ban on Bitcoin mining while at the same time making statements like this:

European regulators have two tools at their disposal to curb Bitcoin’s hunger for electricity. One is to ban EU-wide mining of cryptocurrencies that use proof-of-work. However, the effect would be limited: Since hardly any mining happens in EU countries, this would have „almost no direct effect on the global mining industry – and thus the energy consumption“ of Bitcoin, says Michel Rauchs, who is a researcher at Cambridge University.

From this it is clear that it is not a matter of fighting pollution, but they use this argument to attack Bitcoin on a completely different level, and that is the ban on trading. We may have wondered when China did this, but let's not be surprised if the EU decides to do the same - because European politicians are not too different from their Chinese counterparts.

This picture speaks more than a thousand words, because if someone cares about 220 TWh more than the 50 000 TWh lost every year due to inefficiency, then I can only conclude that not even 100% green Bitcoin would have any effect on their thinking.

[Dunamisx]

there is actually a much more promising alternative: Large-scale miners should have to demonstrate real carbon neutrality.

In addition to this, there is also a development by one of the well known US oil producing company Exxon Mobil which has plans in place to begin the use of petroleum refining waste energy towards the productivity of bitcoin mining in some of it satellites stations in Germany, Nigeria, Argentina, Alaska and Guyana respectively. they come into conclusion after series of consideration has been given on how the flare gas waste energy could be used to facilitate power supply for bitcoin mining activities.

Oil and gas producers are increasingly under pressure from regulators and investors to reduce their carbon footprint to help combat climate change https://www.google.com/amp/s/nairametrics.com/2022/03/24/exxon-mobil-is-using-excess-natural-gas-to-mine-bitcoin/%3famp=1

Their invention is bringing two notable solution to the  energy challenges in bitcoin mining, first is the use of the waste energy from carbon waste against the environmental hazard and secondly is the conversion of those waste energies to source and power the bitcoin mining, the environmental impact assessment of bitcoin mining is providing a lasting solution to the accumulated inefficient global waste  energy from oil and gas products to effective use in bitcoin mining and this is another alternative solution for the source of energy challenge in bitcoin mining.

reference link:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.interestingengineering.com/exxon-mobil-gas-bitcoin

[stompix]

But instead of banning or restricting PoW currencies like Bitcoin, there is actually a much more promising alternative: Large-scale miners should have to demonstrate real carbon neutrality.

This could mean miners could have two alternatives:
1) Mine disconnected from the grid with exclusively own renewable electricity. (For example they could use a solar park or wind turbines, and store the energy accordingly).
2) Mine connected to the grid with a "100% renewable energy tariff", but ensuring they don't rely on fossil electricity in cases of scarcity of renewable electricity.

Let me tell you how this will end.
It will kill all bitcoin mining in Europe and North America and Australia and it will move all of it back to some country that doesn't give a damn about the environment as long as coal-produced electricity is 3 times cheaper.
This whole thing is doomed to fail just as how every single thing eco terrorists have tried to do in the past has come back to haunt us and hurt us ten times more. Let's cut the polluting industry in Europe, let's move it all to China and India, let's not give a crap how things are working there as it's no longer our problem, and let's also pay three times more for the stuff while creating more pollution by just shipping the damn products back and forth.

3) provide a strong incentive to move to places where renewable energy is abundant (Sahara desert, some regions in South America like Patagonia, Brazil and the Altiplano, North American desert regions, Scandinavia/Iceland)

Why hasn't this happened to date?
Why haven't miners flocked to the deserts of Nevada and run their own off-grid panels? Because $ that's it!
The only way miners are able to get cheap renewable energy is when this energy can't be moved somewhere else, take Iceland for example.

*Estimations diverge, a recent one from the Bitcoin Mining Council claims 58% (https://bitcoinminingcouncil.com/q4-bitcoin-mining-council-survey-confirms-sustainable-power-mix-and-technological-efficiency/) is coming from renewables, but this would be still 42% from fossil fuels and (probably on a much smaller scale) nuclear energy.

One of the main members of the BMC is the Marathon group. They run all their 3 exa on coal, dirt-cheap coal.
When asked to prove what their main source of energy was every single one of them failed to answer, and everybody knows it because coal and gas are cheaper, and if you try to buy directly hydro energy you have people that will outbid you in the same quest to look green.

BMC is playing the same narrative as Musk, electrical cars are good, better for the environment all green, too bad they still use more energy to build, a ton of mining equipment and energy for batteries and in most cases, the electricity used is produced with more pollution than a combustion engine. Why isn't BMC showing us their solar and wind farms, their source of green energy?

As much as I hate that %$%$ Warren , she was right on the money when she sent this letter
https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2022.01.27%20Letters%20to%20Cryptominers.pdf
Why hasn't anyone from the BMC come to debunk it?
Because they know the whole 70-80-90% green energy is just for show, just like Google lies about going 100% renewables.

The trick for all those is in the way you present it, look how Google does:

Reaching our 100% renewable purchasing goal means that Google will buy on an annual basis the same amount of megawatt-hours (MWh) of renewable energy—both the physical energy and its corresponding renewable energy certificates (REC)—as the amount of MWh of electricity that we consume for our operations around the world

So they just pay for green certificates that magically make your coal energy solar because you paid money!

Didn't a study in the US demonstrate just that a few months ago?

That's not a study, a study has data and numbers, that's just the greenwashing brochure every company does because they know, you have to show your efforts to save the world or you're doomed in today's world.
If they would have had the numbers they claimed they would have responded to that letter, but they went full head in the sand mode.

All this "environmental-friendly regulation of Bitcoin mining" is a big pile of s*it.

LMFTFY!
All this "environmental-friendly regulation of everything" is going to kill us all before we manage to destroy the Earth.

[kryptqnick]

Op, I like your idea, but I have another thought. I do agree that ecology is important, and that fighting climate change is a legit task that should be taken seriously. At the same time, I think that all businesses should face similar regulations in that regard. Why are miners blamed for using not eco-friendly energy, but others are not? So I think the regulations should target all large eneergy consumers, and set some limits and requirements based on, say, a certain amount of terrawatt hours or something, after which requirements to demonstrate carbon neutrality should come in place. Then, maybe, there can be some exceptions if there are truly critical industries of ensuring the basic needs of citizens are met. But all other businesses, including miner farms, should follow environmental regulations, the burden should not fall only on crypto miners. This would both be fair and more efficient to fight climate change.

[d5000]

Anyhow, would this be something that you believe would be required to be proven before being allowed to mine? The only issue I see with something like this, is largely the problem of centralisation, which obviously goes against what Bitcoin stands for. We would need a central authority to verify that the miners are using green energy, but also they would need to do it without bias, and would actually need to be able to verify it. How do you verify that you're using green energy? Would it be photos which could easily be manipulated or would it be a in person visit, which could potentially anonymise anyone wishing to stay anonymous.

The proposal would be aimed at large scale miners, not so much to the Bitcoin nerd who mines some alts with GPU or Bitcoin with a handful of miners - i.e. when you need an industrial-scale power connection, then you would be affected by this regulation. In most countries these miners have actually already to be registered with the authorities to be able to do their business legally, so I don't see major issues here. Monitoring would take place via smart meters, so the availability of renewable electricity would be compared in realtime with the consumption of the miner.

For privacy concerns, I think the (already common) housing model - where the mining hardware is inside a data center but managed by a third person - is good enough. The data center would then register for the mining permit, but the persons investing the money (and collecting rewards) can stay anonymous. Of course this would lead to a specialization of data centers who allow mining and those that do not (and don't need the permit) which would increase costs, but all this could generate is a slight difficulty increase.

Didn't a study in the US demonstrate just that a few months ago?

I think that's the study by the Bitcoin Mining Council I cited in the OP, where 58% of mining energy was estimated to be renewable. The problem is that 1) 42% are still a lot of fossil electricity and 2) most of this fossil electricity is likely to be used in timeframes where there's a general renewable energy scarcity, i.e. in winter nights without much wind.

What's the purpose of this? To act in accordance with politicians, whose intentions are clearly against the ideals of bitcoin, and to zip the lips of the greenwashed who're misinformed of the way bitcoin works? I don't care.

The purpose is to state an alternative for regulators which would avoid further damage to the Bitcoin ecosystem - which is already happening by the action of countries like China, and is likely to worsen if the EU enacts similar laws, as a lot of countries could follow their example. Instead, the idea is to further boost a change which will need to happen if Bitcoin does't want to collide with efforts to improve environmental friendliness. The development is already going into the right direction but 1% improvement in the renewable/non renewable rate per quarter (according to the BMC study) is too slow. The examples you point out of course should also be considered sustainable sources.

Let me tell you how this will end.
It will kill all bitcoin mining in Europe and North America and Australia and it will move all of it back to some country that doesn't give a damn about the environment as long as coal-produced electricity is 3 times cheaper.

If this happens, I doubt these countries will stay behind and not enact a similar regulation. You cited China which has already banned mining, and India has considered ultra-hard anti-Bitcoin regulation.

The choice at the end will be: 1) Bitcoin/PoW ban or 2) transition of mining towards 100% renewables. Of course it would be better if 2) is achieved without any regulation purely by market forces. But the danger of 1) becoming widespread is real. See this thread.

Why hasn't this happened to date?
Why haven't miners flocked to the deserts of Nevada and run their own off-grid panels? Because $ that's it!

Exactly. That's why perhaps regulation is needed and market forces are still not strong enough. A further 30-50% cost decrease for renewable energy could make regulation unnecessary, but it's perhaps too slow.

The only way miners are able to get cheap renewable energy is when this energy can't be moved somewhere else, take Iceland for example.

I actually don't see a big difference between both situations. The goal of the proposal is to get the "renewable mining cost < non-renewable mining cost" equation to actually work, which still isn't always the case. In the case of this proposal it would be a relatively "authoritarian" measure towards miners, but still much better than the Chinese or proposed EU normative.

Because they know the whole 70-80-90% green energy is just for show, just like Google lies about going 100% renewables.
[...]
So they just pay for green certificates that magically make your coal energy solar because you paid money!

I completely agree with you here that a lot of greenwashing occurs, and that's why in my proposal in the OP CO2 certificates would not be allowed; there would be a direct control by smart metering.

I think that all businesses should face similar regulations in that regard.

There are already regulations of this kind for industries with a large energy consumption. For example, in France almost every winter there's electricity shortage and some industries are then cut off the grid for some hours of the day. There are also countries where there's an "opt-in" regulation like in Argentina: if you agree to reduce your consumption in times of shortage, then you pay less for your electricity.

So the basics of that concept aren't that new. An opt-in regulation like in Argentina but with carbon neutrality requirement would actually also be interesting, but it would be more complex.

@pooya87: 19 tons/day is nothing for a 500+ MW plant. It's comparable with the consumption of a single aircraft. A Boeing 747 consumes 10-11 tonnes per hour!

@Lucius: See my answer to BlackHatCoiner.

@Dunamisx: Thanks for the examples, as I wrote to BlackHatCoiner these techniques are obviously sustainable, although their potential isn't as big as renewable energies (and will likely decrease over time).

[1miau]

I agree to OP that Bitcoin's electricity consumption could be easily solved by appropriate regulations, not a ban.

Introducing a special large-scale mining license required to operate a certain number of MW should be quite effective to solve the problem of dirty mining.
If a big miner is mining without license, he will get his plant shut down until he has a license and pay for his wrongdoing for mining without license.
Small hobby / private miners should be excluded because it would be pointless and build up too much paperwork.
It's important to get the big fishes.

Just a suggestion how I would do it.

Banning would be completely pointless as miners would move somewhere else, where electricity is cheap and dirty.
Every Bitcoin mined off renewable energy is an important step to make Bitcoin more renewable and it should be our goal to make as many Bitcoins mined off renewable energy.

Have we observed the same attitude towards the banking system, which is far more environmentally damaging? No. They're ignorant when it comes to JPMorgan, CITI, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and 32 others ...

I wouldn't engage in whataboutism, it's quite pointless because using whataboutism could suggest we have no real arguments. But we surely have.
I don't need to list all arguments here because it should be clear.
Our focus should be: improve Bitcoin's carbon footprint.

But instead of banning or restricting PoW currencies like Bitcoin, there is actually a much more promising alternative: Large-scale miners should have to demonstrate real carbon neutrality.

This could mean miners could have two alternatives:
1) Mine disconnected from the grid with exclusively own renewable electricity. (For example they could use a solar park or wind turbines, and store the energy accordingly).
2) Mine connected to the grid with a "100% renewable energy tariff", but ensuring they don't rely on fossil electricity in cases of scarcity of renewable electricity.

Let me tell you how this will end.
It will kill all bitcoin mining in Europe and North America and Australia and it will move all of it back to some country that doesn't give a damn about the environment as long as coal-produced electricity is 3 times cheaper.
This whole thing is doomed to fail just as how every single thing eco terrorists have tried to do in the past has come back to haunt us and hurt us ten times more. Let's cut the polluting industry in Europe, let's move it all to China and India, let's not give a crap how things are working there as it's no longer our problem, and let's also pay three times more for the stuff while creating more pollution by just shipping the damn products back and forth.

If that would "kill" mining in Europe, it would mean that renewable mining is not profitable at all. I'm in doubt if that is true. Renewable energy can be quite cheap when it's available in large numbers and that's where it's especially available in a surplus.
In addition, using wasted energy for mining could also make renewables more competitive in some cases.

Even if my consideration above is 100% wrong, if mining in Europe would be "killed" from such regulations it would mean that the US and Canada would do nothing similar like Europe, which should be quite unlikely. There will be similar mandates and we should add them as part of the Paris climate deal or similar. Ok, maybe if Trump should get elected again, he would do his own thing because it's benefitting him at cost of the planet.  
But renewable mining in Texas is already a large (and obviously competitive) electricity source for mining.
And I'm sure there will be some (appropriate) mandates for mining in a Paris climate deal.

I don't deny that we should put pressure on China and India to do more to prevent climate change but doing nothing and just pointing at China and India etc. won't solve anything.

All this "environmental-friendly regulation of Bitcoin mining" is a big pile of s*it.

LMFTFY!
All this "environmental-friendly regulation of everything" is going to kill us all before we manage to destroy the Earth.

I don't know on which facts this opinion is based on but climate change could make large parts of our planet uninhabitable end of the current century, no doubt here if we are lazy.
If not our part of the planet will get uninhabitable, a big chunk of people will be forced to leave their country and cause a mass-scale refugee crisis, including civil wars and unrest of all sorts.
But that's off-topic here I guess.

Our option to make Bitcoin renewable are quite big, there are already solutions and there will be even more. Renewable mining has a chance to be very beneficial overall, also for renewable energy itself.

Perhaps this study is not good enough for European bureaucrats who are so intelligent as to advocate a ban on Bitcoin mining while at the same time making statements like this:

European regulators have two tools at their disposal to curb Bitcoin’s hunger for electricity. One is to ban EU-wide mining of cryptocurrencies that use proof-of-work. However, the effect would be limited: Since hardly any mining happens in EU countries, this would have „almost no direct effect on the global mining industry – and thus the energy consumption“ of Bitcoin, says Michel Rauchs, who is a researcher at Cambridge University.

That's true but there's another part referencing this and it's total a total BS claim (Alex de Vries has very low understanding of the issue):

The economist agrees that mining bans in Europe have little impact on Bitcoin’s energy footprint because mining is virtually location-independent. As long as Bitcoin’s price continues to rise, the same holds true for the cryptocurrency’s energy consumption, he says. „This is also why targeting the Bitcoin price is the only thing likely to work.“

De Vries argues that for this to happen, policymakers would have to tax transactions or restrict the trading of certain cryptocurrencies.

The argument from de Vries goes like this: if the rice of BTC is lower, less mining would be done because it's less profitable and therefore, there would be less pollution.
It's technically somehown true: Yes, if the price of BTC would be lower, in theory, less mining would be done as miners need to be profitable to pay for electricity bills, staff, equipment.

However, his argument is pointless because it doesn't make mining more ecological.
And very likely, the price wouldn't even go down, nobody can guarantee that, maybe it will even go up as people are forced to HODL because selling is restricted and mining isn't based in EU.
Maybe miners wouldn't decrease mining power for whatever reason; maybe because fiat gets inflated even more, so miners take a fiat loan and start mining? Nobody knows!
It's a pointless BS argument from des Vries because it's based on pure speculation and doesn't make even one Hash more ecological.

In my opinion it's very important to debunk that argument because it's completely BS and very damaging for Bitcoin. If de Vries continues his wrong talking points and gets some endorsements from politicians, Bitcoin will have a very hard time in Europe and innovation would go somewhere else. I don't even know how he wants to implement it and at what cost.  
He has a lack of knowledge and seems even proud of it.


tl;dr
Yes, we need to target miners by appropriate regulation and encourage or mandate to use renewable energy. Bans are not a solution because bans don't solve anything; the problem is just getting banned until it comes back or arises elsewhere.

[pooya87]

@pooya87: 19 tons/day is nothing for a 500+ MW plant. It's comparable with the consumption of a single aircraft. A Boeing 747 consumes 10-11 tonnes per hour!

You can't really begin to compare the highly efficient and expensive fuel used in an airplane like Boeing 747 with the lowest quality dirt cheap gasoil with a lot of impurities used here. Not to mention that the plane would emit CO2 while this is emitting SO2 which is worse.

[dansus021]

I never understand why users of electricity should be criticized about how that electricity is produced. It is the producers' problem not the consumers. For example you never see anyone bashing the average Joe for using electricity that was created by burning fossil fuel! Or bash one of the factories that are not only wasting a lot of electricity but also polluting the environment in a million different ways!

well it always come to my mind to be honest

even tho we stop burning fossil fuel to generate energy and do it for mining, the government will still critized mining because of waste energy

the will stop critized bitcoin or other crypto mining if the gov ifself got the money from it like tax for miner etc.

if the gov dont get any penny from crypto no matter who clean the energy it still be controversy (just my opinion)

[justdimin]

I think first is more than enough. Just make it a self sustainable place and that's more than enough.

However, what I wonder is that why do we not ask for the same thing on other companies? There are so many companies that destroy the world, even before crypto was a thing, even before mining was a thing, we had so many companies in the energy sector destroying world, why didn't we ask them to be self sustaining in energy? We didn't because we needed them, and that's why they were let go.

Just Texas energy companies alone destroy the world in a horrible pace, do not get me started on china pollution as well. It's obviously one sided to ask for bitcoin to be getting better when everyone else goes on regularly.