U.S. Lawmakers Reintroduce Bill to Force Crypto Miners to Disclose Emissions

[Hydrogen]

The bill also requires the EPA to study the effect crypto mining has on the environment

U.S. Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) reintroduced a bill to require crypto miners to disclose their emissions and the Environmental Protection Agency to report on the effects of crypto mining.

The Crypto-Asset Environmental Transparency Act, which was first introduced in December and which is cosponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), would mandate the EPA to conduct a study on what impact miners using more than 5 megawatts of power have on greenhouse gas emissions and require the miners to disclose information about the emissions.

The reintroduction of the bill comes ahead of a hearing on Tuesday on the environmental impact of crypto mining. A list of witnesses scheduled to testify at that hearting wasn't immediately available.

The pollution generated by the crypto mining industry "is growing," Markey said in a statement.

“While we’re working together as a nation to face down an existential crisis that puts the health and safety of our people and our planet in jeopardy, crypto miners are sucking megawatt after megawatt from our public grids and emitting skyrocketing greenhouse gasses, just so they can make a buck for themselves," he said. "We can’t afford to let this industry run roughshod over our communities any longer.”

The bill itself is largely similar to last year's version.

In the press release, Markey noted that several senators asked the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) about the impact crypto miners have on its energy grid.


https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/03/03/us-lawmakers-reintroduce-bill-that-would-have-crypto-miners-disclose-emissions/

....


Senators from massachusetts, california and oregon proposed the EPA investigate carbon emissions relating to the US crypto mining industry.

There has been independent research conducted on this topic over the years. The demographic breakdown of US energy generation in reference to the location of industrial crypto mining is well known and defined. With the majority of crypto mining in the USA being located in texas. The basic format is known and documented which will make it interesting to see what the EPA report says.

Ted Cruz emerging as one of the more outspoken politicians on US crypto mining, it will be interesting to see what commentary he has to offer. The state of texas having a vested interest in crypto mining, it is possible that Govenor Abbott might have some words to offer as well.

[1714899244]

1714899244

[1714899244]

1714899244

[1714899244]

1714899244

[Hispo]

Senators from massachusetts, california and oregon proposed the EPA investigate carbon emissions relating to the US crypto mining industry.

There has been independent research conducted on this topic over the years. The demographic breakdown of US energy generation in reference to the location of industrial crypto mining is well known and defined. With the majority of crypto mining in the USA being located in texas. The basic format is known and documented which will make it interesting to see what the EPA report says.

Ted Cruz emerging as one of the more outspoken politicians on US crypto mining, it will be interesting to see what commentary he has to offer. The state of texas having a vested interest in crypto mining, it is possible that Govenor Abbott might have some words to offer as well.

It is interesting to notice the way they talk about Bitcoin mining, as if the miners were actually stealing energy instead paying their bills as they are supposed to, they also do not even mention the efforts some miners and jurisdictions are making in order to move to renewable energies. so they can be left alone with their operations.

Also, I highly doubt some Republican politician like Abbott and Cruz will openly say what they think about this proposal of Bill, since as we get closer to 2024 and so many political careers are getting at stake, they will rather focus on other themes which most of the American population are more familiar with, like social security, medicaid, the border security, inflation, gun control etc.  

[Captain Corporate]

It is not who spends the energy that we need to look at, it is who produces it. Because if you produce energy from wind or solar, that's clean energy right? Everyone at least says so, and when you produce it from coal or oil, that is bad and the pollution caused by it ends up heating up the world and causing climate change. This means that miners are not the problem, nor any other business that spends energy, none of that ever mattered at any given time. What matters is the companies that sell energy and how clean they are. This should have been a priority a long time ago, not even now, about 20 years ago, and yet they didn't care. So they should maybe stop acting as if they care now.

[lionheart78]

I do favor the bill.  For the sake of shaming these people who claim that Bitcoin mining is harmful to the environment, let the bill pass thru.  At least people will know the truth when these miners disclose the emissions created by mining.  Having the data is way better than just refuting the claim of others that Bitcoin mining is harmful to the environment.  So let it be, I believe this is a good thing for Bitcoin industry if proven that Bitcoin mining is not harmful as what many people thinks.

It is interesting to notice the way they talk about Bitcoin mining, as if the miners were actually stealing energy instead paying their bills as they are supposed to, they also do not even mention the efforts some miners and jurisdictions are making in order to move to renewable energies. so they can be left alone with their operations.

Many "wise" people think that Bitcoin mining consumes a lot of energy, making the need to produce more energy than usual and they think that it will be harmful because of depleting the resources faster and creating carbon emission way more than if Bitcoin mining isn't around.

[Casdinyard]

A little paradoxical how they keep attacking crypto miner's usage of electricity and how "environmentally-detrimental" and such and such it is but are also eager to legislate the sale of Alaska to drill hundred million barrels worth of oil. I think a paradigm shift in the country's higher laws should be made, because as it stands today the whole country is going to be a laughingstock against the rising powers in the orient. Hong Kong, China, hell even Japan is showing signs of dominance against the once "greatest country in the world". I feel like I'm going off to a tangent here but my point is that maybe they should stop throwing shit at bitcoin, and miners when they're smeared with caca themselves.

[Gyfts]

I do favor the bill.  For the sake of shaming these people who claim that Bitcoin mining is harmful to the environment, let the bill pass thru.  At least people will know the truth when these miners disclose the emissions created by mining.  Having the data is way better than just refuting the claim of others that Bitcoin mining is harmful to the environment.  So let it be, I believe this is a good thing for Bitcoin industry if proven that Bitcoin mining is not harmful as what many people thinks.

Miners shouldn't be forced to jump through compliance hoops in order to mine crypto. That's the main concern. Any industrial bitcoin operation is going to keep track of energy usage. Emission tracking probably introduces a bit more complications, and if this bill were to pass with complicated jargon and provisions, then it would make operations that much more difficult.

Yet again, more useless noise by the climate change activists in the U.S. Congress.

[Ucy]

They should blame miners who aren't using energy efficiently and in environmentally friendly manner.
To use energy efficiently means that very little to no energy goes to waste. You can use the energy efficiently by sending the by-products such as heat to people's homes to warm them during winter, by building energy efficient miners that use energy efficiently to avoid generating too much heat, or the heat byproduct generated by the miners can be used to generate more energy. The use of current energy-demanding miners could be justified if they are used to warm people's homes and save them from dying from cold.
By the way, it's actually smart to build miners that have multiple uses. They will be hard to stop or censor. You can as well tell government that what you bought are heaters that generate money at thesame time. How cool is that.

[Flexystar]

This is funny and why it wont be ?

Whenever I see pollution + bitcoin mining in any article I first laugh very hard and then my brain flashes worlds biggest mining's for oil, diamonds, gold, other essential metals, silica, and what not? We never get questioned about them because they do not make any pollution and the important reasons behind that is, they are under the control of government authorities and they are getting heavily paid for the same.

The list of pollution making industries is just endless. You pick anything from making a plastic toy to premium car, everything has pollution creating process.

They have the fixed pollution control rates for example, there should be XYZ readings in the waste water, ABC pollutant in the emitted air from the factory and so on. However, they were decided safe by the pollution control board but no one does anything about it in reality.

What kind of pollution under control criteria would they set for bitcoin mining farm? Have a scrubber to every ASICs? Have giant carbon filter around the factory?

Is it really that much pollution coming out of the mining farms? Have they able to melt the ICE on poles?

[Kakmakr]

It is about time that comparisons be made between the energy that Crypto mining are using and the amount of energy that are wasted on the financial industry (Banks & Financial institutions)

We know each Bank branch has several air-conditioning units and ATMs that are running 24/7 and also computers and CCTV and lights.. and large armored vehicles to transport cash..... have they disclosed their emissions?

[kryptqnick]

I do agree that generally, it's good to monitor emmissions and what causes them. After all, reducing emmissions is something we should be actively working on, and the USA is clearly not meeting eco-friendly goals, which will then be bad for the whole planet. That being said, are there similar requirements to any other companies that use more than 5 megawatts of power? Because if it's about emmissions, everyone should be reporting them and it shouldn't be assumed that what everyone else is doing is too important to restrict them, whereas miners are doing something the USA can successfully live without, which is why miners must report their environmental impact. If they introduce a bill that obliges every company or at least a wide range of companies to report their impact in similar ways, that could be really helpful and set fair requirements to everyone. Focusing merely on miners is unfair.

[odolvlobo]

“... crypto miners are ... emitting skyrocketing greenhouse gasses

He is horribly misinformed or he is lying to promote his agenda.

[stompix]

This is funny and why it wont be ?

Whenever I see pollution + bitcoin mining in any article I first laugh very hard and then my brain flashes worlds biggest mining's for oil, diamonds, gold, other essential metals, silica, and what not? We never get questioned about them because they do not make any pollution and the important reasons behind that is, they are under the control of government authorities and they are getting heavily paid for the same.

Oh yeah because it's completely accurate to compare industries that if shut down will lead to billions dying with bitcoin mining!
You've seen what high energy prices have triggered all over the world? Compared to the effect of the hashrate drop in half, oh wait, was there even an effect at all? Totally fair to compare industries that 8 billion use to work, feed themselves, and many more,  with 300k transactions per day and only 15 million addresses with over 100$ of funds in it.

It is about time that comparisons be made between the energy that Crypto mining are using and the amount of energy that are wasted on the financial industry (Banks & Financial institutions)

Yeah about time, here is it, by Galaxy Digital, so you can't say it's banking shilling
https://docsend.com/view/adwmdeeyfvqwecj2

The global electricity consumption of the banking system is estimated to be 238.92 TWh/yr.

Bitcoin Mining Council:
https://bitcoinminingcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/BMC-Q4-2022-Presentation.pdf

275 TWh
ENERGY CONSUMED BY BITCOIN MINING
ON THE WORLD'S ELECTRIC GRID

Also, it's pretty funny how you talk about banks' AC units, the vans the offices, but when it comes to Bitcoin we only add mining, wound;t be right to add the servers of Binance and Coinbase, their offices, all the BATMs all over the world, all the nodes and so on?

I don't know why everyone gets so triggered when somebody asks for transparency!
Wasn't this one of the goals here, or when it comes to Bitcoin we don't want to hear the bad part of it, much like some cultist who won't take any criticism on the Bible or whatever their holy book is?

But yeah I get it, when it's against your interest, it's normal to hide stuff, no more moon if we tell the truth, right? 

[tiCeR]

Senators from massachusetts, california and oregon proposed the EPA investigate carbon emissions relating to the US crypto mining industry.

There has been independent research conducted on this topic over the years. The demographic breakdown of US energy generation in reference to the location of industrial crypto mining is well known and defined. With the majority of crypto mining in the USA being located in texas. The basic format is known and documented which will make it interesting to see what the EPA report says.

Ted Cruz emerging as one of the more outspoken politicians on US crypto mining, it will be interesting to see what commentary he has to offer. The state of texas having a vested interest in crypto mining, it is possible that Govenor Abbott might have some words to offer as well.

It is interesting to notice the way they talk about Bitcoin mining, as if the miners were actually stealing energy instead paying their bills as they are supposed to, they also do not even mention the efforts some miners and jurisdictions are making in order to move to renewable energies. so they can be left alone with their operations.

Also, I highly doubt some Republican politician like Abbott and Cruz will openly say what they think about this proposal of Bill, since as we get closer to 2024 and so many political careers are getting at stake, they will rather focus on other themes which most of the American population are more familiar with, like social security, medicaid, the border security, inflation, gun control etc.  

True and it is very easy to bash Bitcoin when it comes to voters because the majority of them still don't know how it works, what kind of energy it consumes, whether shifts to renewables are possible and already happening, or they are not interested in understanding it at all and politicians know it is an unpopular term to use when you are trying to win voters for you. Now Bitcoin still seems to not be big enough of a topic that someone like Donald Trump would use that word in public. There is no need for that.

The threat really is that legislation or bills get past without in depth discussion because nobody really wants to fight about it in congress. But thinking about it the discussion about energy consumption has been going on for years and it makes no sense because other technology also has to move to renewables over the coming years and so does Bitcoin. I am not aware of the exact number that Bitcoin mining is operated on renewables, but it is quite significant by now I think.

Might be worth a read as it just came out today.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Also, I highly doubt some Republican politician like Abbott and Cruz will openly say what they think about this proposal of Bill, since as we get closer to 2024 and so many political careers are getting at stake, they will rather focus on other themes which most of the American population are more familiar with, like social security, medicaid, the border security, inflation, gun control etc.  

I wouldn't put it past any politician to do or say anything regarding crypto, and elections are always coming whether it's next month or in 4 years.  I also don't think criticizing miners for using electricity is that controversial as compared to those other issues you mentioned, so it's a relatively safe one--in fact, those politicians probably wouldn't even be doing anything about miners' energy costs if they weren't up for reelection. 

And all those ATM machines going 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Nobody in Washington ever gives that a second thought.

[tiCeR]

Also, I highly doubt some Republican politician like Abbott and Cruz will openly say what they think about this proposal of Bill, since as we get closer to 2024 and so many political careers are getting at stake, they will rather focus on other themes which most of the American population are more familiar with, like social security, medicaid, the border security, inflation, gun control etc.  

I wouldn't put it past any politician to do or say anything regarding crypto, and elections are always coming whether it's next month or in 4 years.  I also don't think criticizing miners for using electricity is that controversial as compared to those other issues you mentioned, so it's a relatively safe one--in fact, those politicians probably wouldn't even be doing anything about miners' energy costs if they weren't up for reelection. 

And all those ATM machines going 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Nobody in Washington ever gives that a second thought.

I would say that they don't even give the entire banking system infrastructure energy and resources expenditure a first thought. They behave as if that infrastructure wouldn't consume anything when they decide to attack Bitcoin once again. You could argue against them in so many regards. Money has to be carried around in transporters, couriers get shot. All the security measures that must be taken and cost money. Ok, you could say it also creates jobs

I don't know if it has ever been done, but an approximate calculation of what the global banking infrastructure consumes in terms of energy, money, resources lost in terms of corruption, robberies, required security, etc. I think a true case could be made for Bitcoin in this regard and all those skyscrapers wouldn't be necessary anymore anyway as most of the business could have been taken online long ago.

it is also often argued against Bitcoin as if the status quo in terms of energy consumption is set in stone. Cars have been running with combustion engines for a century now so why not give Bitcoin to decades to become environmentally clean(er). This shows that it is not about the energy consumption why Bitcoin is hated by governments, it is just one angle that is easily understood by the public and can therefore be easily instrumentalized to make a case against Bitcoin. A slogan like "Bitcoin is consuming enough energy to power Denmark for a year" works quite well and sounds shocking in the first place. Even leaving the fact out what the composition of that energy is that could be used to power Denmark for a year.

[Fiatless]

It's not bad to disclose the amount of emission that companies emit into the environment because it would help the environmental agencies to make policies. I also support this bill because health is better than wealth. But I also suggest that this laws should also affect other sectors. Americans should also be privileged to know the amount of emission other industries expose the society to. People will be surprise that other sectors contribute more to environmental pollution than Bitcoin mining. But it is also a wake up call to Bitcoin miners to move to more green energy sources because the government targets them more than other sectors.

And all those ATM machines going 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Nobody in Washington ever gives that a second thought.

Banks use 56 times more energy than Bitcoin energy consumption.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/why-banking-uses-at-least-56-times-more-energy-than-bitcoin/amp

[o48o]

-cut-
Banks use 56 times more energy than Bitcoin energy consumption.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/why-banking-uses-at-least-56-times-more-energy-than-bitcoin/amp

Wouldn't it makes sense that this wouldn't affect only to crypto and every energy user out there would need to disclose emissions? I honestly don't understand why this wouldn't be counted directly to the electricity bill so it would affect everyone. It's just weird and most likely unconstitutional if some activities are targetted and some not because made up reasons.