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.

[ancafe]

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.

Environmental damage isn't only caused by Bitcoin miners, as many companies with government permits also damage the environment, yet they operate legally due to obtaining permits. I prefer to blame the individuals, not Bitcoin because if miners operate correctly and not illegally, the potential for environmental damage in the Bitcoin mining sector is quite small. Bitcoin is always associated with criminal acts by hate groups, even though fiat currencies are generally used by irresponsible individuals for legal activities.

We are smart enough to understand the situation and have become familiar with Bitcoin in recent years to no be easily fooled by this kind of propaganda. So it's better to forget about that problem and continue to set targets regarding the investments you are making so that under certain conditions you can generate maximum profits from the investment process you are undertaking.

[Oluwa-btc]

Don't fall for the propaganda that is purposely developed to discredit Bitcoin. This issue is always exaggerated to make people think that Bitcoin has a bad impact on the environment, though on the other hand we see that Bitcoin mining is now more environmentally friendly and more efficient, and more miners are even using the electricity network from renewable resources, this shows the commitment of miners to improve and continue to adapt for long-term sustainability.

Just compare it with the banking system, offices, banks and various other industries, it even uses much more energy and doesn't even care about its long-term environmental impact. Bitcoin is even much better in this regard.

The purpose of this agenda is to depreciate and disapprove the value of Bitcoin so it becomes a financial investment threat to potential users or investors.Bitcoin is always open to general hate and critics,it's not a good idea.So it should be vice versa,since the government won't stop the attack,Bitcoin advancement and adoption wouldn't cease to exist too.

[arwin100]

Don't fall for the propaganda that is purposely developed to discredit Bitcoin. This issue is always exaggerated to make people think that Bitcoin has a bad impact on the environment, though on the other hand we see that Bitcoin mining is now more environmentally friendly and more efficient, and more miners are even using the electricity network from renewable resources, this shows the commitment of miners to improve and continue to adapt for long-term sustainability.

Just compare it with the banking system, offices, banks and various other industries, it even uses much more energy and doesn't even care about its long-term environmental impact. Bitcoin is even much better in this regard.

The purpose of this agenda is to depreciate and disapprove the value of Bitcoin so it becomes a financial investment threat to potential users or investors.Bitcoin is always open to general hate and critics,it's not a good idea.So it should be vice versa,since the government won't stop the attack,Bitcoin advancement and adoption wouldn't cease to exist too.

What I can say is they are bunch of hypocrites for saying that Bitcoin destroy environment, while the fact some of those politicians approve a project which is more destructive on environment. But here they are saying that Bitcoin can cause harm? I think they just made that statement because they know its hard for them to control Bitcoin that's why the only thing he made Before is to spread black propaganda towards this coin.

But since Bitcoin continue to succeed this means that no one listen on their mud slinging and people continue to deal with Bitcoin on investment also with other transactions they made.

[Royal Cap]

We often discuss energy consumption but we forget why people are moving towards Bitcoin, For many it is not only an investment but a system that does not rely on one main authority, the value of this freedom is also compared by many to the cost of energy. The fact is that there are many facilities that we use every day that have the other properties of demanding the environment and we are not willing to give all this up. So it seems a little unfair to me to single out Bitcoin to blame, Rather the discussion on how energy can be used more cleanly is more needed.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

We often discuss energy consumption but we forget why people are moving towards Bitcoin, For many it is not only an investment but a system that does not rely on one main authority, the value of this freedom is also compared by many to the cost of energy. The fact is that there are many facilities that we use every day that have the other properties of demanding the environment and we are not willing to give all this up. So it seems a little unfair to me to single out Bitcoin to blame, Rather the discussion on how energy can be used more cleanly is more needed.

You have to understand that this whole discussion around bitcoin mining and it's energy consumption started from bitcoin haters, those that do not love bitcoin and wish for it to collapse/fail, they are the main character and carrier of this propaganda that Bitcoin is not safe for our environment or is not environmentally friendly due to the process invloved in mining..

So, when you say it's unfair to single out bitcoin in the debate of what consumes energy when there are other things out there that consumes far more energy than bitcoin, I actually wonder what you expected from bitcoin haters, the gaming industry according to research consumes far more energy than what it takes to mine thousands of bitcoin but yet, no one is talking about that, what does this teach you?

[john_egbert]

We often discuss energy consumption but we forget why people are moving towards Bitcoin, For many it is not only an investment but a system that does not rely on one main authority, the value of this freedom is also compared by many to the cost of energy. The fact is that there are many facilities that we use every day that have the other properties of demanding the environment and we are not willing to give all this up. So it seems a little unfair to me to single out Bitcoin to blame, Rather the discussion on how energy can be used more cleanly is more needed.

FUDsters gonna fud. you won't be able to change that no matter what you say or do.

You can only ignore that noise and be happy

[Vishnum38416]

Bitcoin doesn't destroy environment, it's just politics cal drama.. We wish bitcoin should be used as currency in future

[danieldavidd]

It was an agenda created by a group of beings too tarnish the image of Bitcoin so that they can out sell their

platforms across the world.

But curate me if I am wrong.

[summonerrk]

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.
. Makes intermittent energy like Wind/Solar profitable.
. Helps stabilize the power grid.

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?

Bitcoin has nothing to do with environmental destruction; these are just arguments from Bitcoin opponents, unsupported by any facts. In the city where I used to live, there was a huge metallurgical plant, with enormous plumes of polluted air rising from its chimneys. And the city administration didn't care. Bus TVs blared positive pronouncements about how environmentally friendly the production was.
Although medical statistics were closed, it was clear that almost all the children had allergies. So how can anyone say that Bitcoin mining is environmentally unfriendly compared to this?

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

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?

It is just political propaganda as that is the only valid reason they can use to try to convince the public not to invest in Bitcoin because they will say if they do that then they are supporting destroying the environment but then again what about the private jets in their thousands flying everyday destroying the earth with pollution and also the cargo ships transporting goods all over the world polluting the earth in the process. What about the thousands to millions of cars driving everyday polluting the earth what will they say about all this nothing, they only focus on Bitcoin because they understand the power that Bitcoin holds that is why they will try all their possible best with different propaganda just to destroy the trust Bitcoin has built over the years.