Does Bitcoin destroy the environment or is it just political propaganda?

[suzanne5223]

[snip]
I think some governments are worried about pollution of Bitcoin simply because they are afraid of losing control over money. So checking out newest stories on goal of Bitcoin to reach level of pollution of zero at the moment.

Could you explain what you mean by the government being afraid of the pollution of Bitcoin, because the last time I checked, Bitcoin mining doesn't pollute nature as they say, and they have already lost control over fiat currency due to their 2% inflation adoption, which also triggered the printing of billions of new fiat currencies every year.
For the record, Bitcoin was created to complement fiat currency, not go against it, which i believe is what some governments understand before having the aim to go for a Bitcoin strategy reserve.

[henry_of_skalitz]

^ It's usually used as a FUD argument toward BTC to be seen as something negative.. regarding the pollution aspect, I mean.

But there is nothing to worry about in reality.

[m2017]

Every time Bitcoin is discussed, one thing is heard -
Bitcoin mining destroys the environment.

Let's be honest. Human activity is destroying the environment. Why doesn't the government ban it?

This claim has been repeated so many times that people have stopped asking questions.

Because people have been programmed with this thought through repetition.

To verify the truth of this claim, they never ask, How much electricity is wasted in Bitcoin mining, what kind of electricity is used in mining, and what kind of resources are available behind this waste?

But have the general public ever fact-checked the claims fed to them? Of course not. They blindly believe everything they hear in the media.

Now the question is-
. Why doesn't anyone show the energy breakdown of banking systems, military, data centers, gold mining?

You don't understand: this is something completely different.

Because you can't demonize something that brings profit (income, influence, power).

. Why is only Bitcoin made an environmental villain?

Because they want to "distance" people from bitcoin. Probably so that they stay away from this asset and don't buy or use it.

Another uncomfortable truth is that
Bitcoin mining is price-sensitive, location-agnostic and interruptible load
That is:
. That is, Bitcoin is converted from energy into wealth.

Well, in this case, wealth is an abstract thing.

. Makes intermittent energy like Wind/Solar profitable.

In truth, this energy could be used for more useful purposes: from banal street lighting to using it to meet household needs.

. Helps stabilize the power grid.

Could you explain how this works? Is this a case where energy is additionally used for mining during peak consumption times in the evening and at night?

Yes, we may not call Bitcoin perfect, but calling Bitcoin an environment destroyer is intellectually dishonest.

Call a spade a spade - this is just a made-up lie.

The real question is:
Are we really concerned about the environment, or are we just attacking a system that cannot be controlled?

All this talk about the harm of bitcoin to the environment is nothing more than manipulation of public opinion in order to distance people from this asset.

[Judith87403]

The line of Bitcoin destroys the environment survives as a result of it's simple nature, not as a result of it's complete nature. Use of energy alone is not pollution. The only thing that matters is the source, the incentives, and the alternatives. Bitcoin mining increasingly makes use of stranded, wasted, or maybe renewable energy as it is mobile, sensitive to price, and has ability to shut off immediately. Some critics compares this to banking, mining gold, the military, or international data centers as those systems looks familiar and politically secured. Bitcoin differs. BTC is neutral, borderless, and is hard to control. This makes it an easy target. The debate is little on emissions and more about power. When environmental concern is genuine, transparency on energy may be demanded all over the systems, it isn't weaponized selectively against one.

[topbitcoin]

Yes, we may not call Bitcoin perfect, but calling Bitcoin an environment destroyer is intellectually dishonest.
The real question is:
Are we really concerned about the environment, or are we just attacking a system that cannot be controlled?

There are more greenhouse effect factories in the world, there are tons of mining factories, palm oil farms or even other industrial factories but why do we focus so much on bitcoin as if they are the most destructive compared to others.

Bitcoin does have electricity consumption which can be said to be quite large but does the process of environmental damage ultimately refer only to bitcoin? of course not like that because even if bitcoin does not operate for one day as an example of environmental damage will continue to occur because in the end the destructive factor is not an object like bitcoin but we as humans who are sometimes greedy who ultimately sacrifice the environment as a tool that can be explored.

The issue of bitcoin damaging the environment is just a form of defensive for those who do not like bitcoin which makes them try to make bitcoin look bad and from the beginning it has always been like that.

[ruykeri]

The line of Bitcoin destroys the environment survives as a result of it's simple nature, not as a result of it's complete nature. Use of energy alone is not pollution. The only thing that matters is the source, the incentives, and the alternatives. Bitcoin mining increasingly makes use of stranded, wasted, or maybe renewable energy as it is mobile, sensitive to price, and has ability to shut off immediately. Some critics compares this to banking, mining gold, the military, or international data centers as those systems looks familiar and politically secured. Bitcoin differs. BTC is neutral, borderless, and is hard to control. This makes it an easy target. The debate is little on emissions and more about power. When environmental concern is genuine, transparency on energy may be demanded all over the systems, it isn't weaponized selectively against one.

I agree with you. Actually, the problem is not the damage to the environment, the problem is the damage to their power. The government will never want their control to be removed from the economy. That is why they have been doing it for many years now in the way they can spread negativity about Bitcoin. They have been misleading people by spreading new propaganda information in different times. The damage to the environment is more than Bitcoin mining in the production of equipment used in the military and war. No one talks about it, but when it comes to Bitcoin, all kinds of nonsense speech comes  from the government .

[death69]

Yes, Bitcoin uses energy. That is true. But so does everything else we do which requires computation or security or verification. The question is not about whether it uses energy. It is whether what it does is worth the energy it uses. And that is subjective, right? Some people believe it is worth securing a decentralized financial network. Others do not. We do not ask how much energy Netflix uses, or YouTube, or the entire Christmas light industry. Those things exist, they are using power, but they are normalized, so no one cares.

The data in that image is interesting though. A lot of it would be wasted, mining companies are using sustainable energy. Stranded methane ends up burnt rather than released (which is actually good for the environment). Solar and wind projects are profitable because miners purchase the excess energy when demand is low.

That is not a talking point. That is the way the economics work. Miners chase cheap power. The cheap power is increasingly renewable. But we are not having that conversation because it is easier to just say Bitcoin bad and move on. It is frustrating because the real issue is about control, not carbon. Financial systems that cannot be stopped or manipulated are threatening people who are benefiting from the current set up. So they attack it however they can.

[Cookdata]

^ It's usually used as a FUD argument toward BTC to be seen as something negative.. regarding the pollution aspect, I mean.

But there is nothing to worry about in reality.

The government are very bias when it come to argument. They see Bitcoin as imperfections when it's too perfect for everyone liking. There is nothing in life that is too perfect literally and Bitcoin isn't exempted but what about fiat system? If we speak about the illicit and corruptions governments do with fiat money, they can't do it if they hold Bitcoin because their assess will be blown to the public.

When government gives contract to ministers and other firms of the government, the money are eaten and redistributed to their cycle and lack accountability when ask for one, statement of account can be tempered but let's government start send Bitcoin to each of them to carry out projects and some task, they will not be able to touch 1 sat without accountability.

Let's talk about the fiat money they burn, old money are removed from circulation, they are assembled by the commercial bank and sent to the central banks that burns this money. This is pollution but will use some stupid terms to cover their ass. We don't talk about production capital used to print more money. See, the government knows what they are doing but wouldn't just want to admit. It's pointless when they are spreading FUD.

[Finestream]

If ever there are those who destroy the environment, its the bad guys or the lawbreakers that should be blamed, not bitcoin because its just a tool. Although there are also those bad people who are using bitcoin as their tool, but mostly its fiat that is always involved in different crimes.

However, this claim is clearly a political propaganda because they want to ruin the bright future for bitcoin, because they cannot take full control with bitcoin which is a complete opposite of fiat. So its not new to us why bitcoin is often attacked by negative people.

[SirLancelot]

There are some cases to be made for both sides. First of all, bitcoin mining is using energy, and unfortunately we have finite amount of energy we are producing, it is not unlimited, which means yes we are ruining the environment by using this energy, would be better if it went unused or used for something better. However, the other side, the one that defends bitcoin, could easily say that why bitcoin mining?

There are so many stuff, like planes that fly all day everyday, that uses the most, then lets make it so that everyone travels by train or boats? So it is easy to say that bitcoin mining uses energy a lot, but even the newly popular AI stuff is destroying our waters. It is easy who does what, and you can blame anyone if you wish so.