Bitcoin: A Climate Disaster

Writing these days about Bitcoin and climate change is analogous to writing about religion and politics – a safe midfield is nearly hard to find. Environmentalists and others are warned that the electricity usage in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has been already extensive and rapidly increasing. They look to the trend and argue that cryptocurrency could eventually undermine the hard work of mitigating climate change throughout the rest of the world economy, leading to environmental disasters. For accurate info, visit Yuan Pay Group of bitcoin.

On the other hand, proponents of cryptocurrency say that these mining and transactional activities encourage greater use of renewable energy sources by increasing electricity usage. They reference industry surveys statistics that show that many Bitcoin miners employ renewable energy already. And so, it is worth it – while substituting traditional waste banking and encouraging lower consumer use, even though Bitcoin uses much of electricity.

So who is right?

Both parties to the disagreement are involved in such enhanced rhetoric that everyone on all sides is passionate about the subject. In addition, it makes it difficult to obtain accurate data save for anecdotes and self-reported surveys and to the anonymous and decentralised nature of crypto-currency activities. Naturally, both parties are wrong because they argue for each other as if the genius could return to the flask. As if you are interested or fearful (as is the case), that cryptocurrency could be shut down. At this point, this will not happen.

Sadly, delving deeper into both parties’ claims, the reasons that bitcoin is good for the environment to have no water. Three essential assumptions underlie these arguments: Bitcoin miners will relocate to the cheapest electricity; that more and more of the most inexpensive electrical supply is renewable. The withdrawal rate for the older producers of fossil fuels will remain the same. This is not true of the two last assumptions.

Yes, while renewables are now the cheapest way of generating new energy in many world regions, existing power stations are typically more affordable. They must only sell power for their marginal fuel and split up their operational costs compared to any additional capacity requiring substantial capital expenses.

So, What Must be Done?

For individuals who cannot co-locate with a particular project, green electricity purchases can be used, much as many business data centres have. This would encourage the adoption of renewables without so much direct fossil-fuel generator price build-up.

But, of course, the reality is not so easy. It is hard to conceive about tracing every bitcoin miner, monitoring its electricity mix, and in any way verifying that their mined bitcoins and transactions are “green” because of the very decentralised and anonymous nature of the cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin, a producer of “green bitcoin,” will not have a premium price compared to anyone who sets up secretly a mining platform in their closet (or: 50 000 platforms in Central Asia).

This will soon be a massive challenge for the leading technology, corporate and investment community as they will quickly take cryptocurrency as a genuine asset, indicates the article in NYT today. These apparent entities are already under an ESG microscope in all other facets of their business and investment activities.

What will happen if Bitcoin is treated as Carbon Emission Creator?

Because cryptocurrencies are essentially autonomous and non-governmental, this is a challenge that companies and institutional investors will have to confront alone. The world of governments has collapsed, and businesses fill the hole of the collectively regulated markets is a famous science-fiction cliche. But, at least for cryptocurrencies, we are about to test such visions now because businesses and institutional investors must hold themselves to prevent Bitcoin et al.’s worst feared climatic consequences.

What can big companies and institutional investors accomplish with cryptocurrencies?

First, they can take ‘green crypto practises’ voluntarily. They could directly cooperate or accommodate mining activities to determine the energy source for the activity in which they participate. You will not receive a premium from the market for this, as mentioned above. This would therefore be entirely a cost of defence. And the entire market wouldn’t be fixed, only their small part. But it might be a beginning.

Secondly, they may work together in the same direction. A coalition of adopters of corporations and institutional investments that, combined, dictate adherence in areas of the market to “green crypto practises.” Of course, as mentioned earlier, nothing would preclude the “defected” of this Agreement by other bitcoin miners worldwide. But as significant institutions are becoming larger actors in cryptocurrencies, they could influence industry practises more and more.

That said, one of the ways, as mentioned above, would genuinely fix the problem is tough to be sure of. However, because of the challenge for highly qualified banks to reverse their funding of the coal sector while increasing pressure to do so, it isn’t easy to envisage a practical, universal volunteer alliance emerge around green crypto practices throughout the financial world.