1. Home
  2. Environment

Environment

White House science office looks at crypto’s effect on climate, despite scarce data

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy reaches mixed conclusions about crypto and the climate, against a background of rapid technological change.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has weighed in on the environmental and energy impact of crypto assets in the United States, finding that crypto makes a significant contribution to energy usage and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It recommends monitoring and regulation in response.

The report, released Sept. 8, was the latest to come out of the U.S. President Joe Biden’s March executive order (EO) on the development of digital assets. The EO charged the OSTP with investigating the energy usage associated with digital assets, comparing that usage with other energy outlays, investigating uses of blockchain technology to support climate protection and making recommendations to minimize or mitigate the environmental impact of digital assets.

The study found that crypto assets use approximately 50 billion kilowatt-hours of energy per year in the U.S., which is 38% of the global total. A lack of monitoring made accurate energy accounting impossible. The report upheld the tradition of making creative energy usage comparisons, however, saying that crypto assets are responsible for slightly more energy usage in the U.S. than home computers, but less than home lighting or refrigeration. Furthermore:

“Noting direct comparisons are complicated, Visa, MasterCard, and American Express combined […] consumed less than 1% of the electricity that Bitcoin and Ethereum used that same year, despite processing many times the number of on-chain transactions and supporting their broader corporate operations.”

High energy usage wears down grids and drives up energy prices, the report said. The role of Proof of Work staking in crypto asset energy consumption was clearly noted, as was the fact that changes in consensus mechanism usage and the field’s rapidly evolution make forecasting future energy usage impossible as well.

Related: White House office seeks public opinion on crypto-climate implications

In any case, the report said, “Crypto-asset mining using grid electricity generates greenhouse gas emissions – unless mining uses clean energy.” The report also presented blockchain technology use cases for distributing energy and supporting environmental (carbon) markets. The report examined some strategies for improving crypto asset energy usage, such as the use of stranded methane, but others, like repurposing collateral crypto mining heat, were not considered.

The report’s recommendations were broadly written, for example:

“Federal agencies should provide technical assistance and initiate a collaborative process with states, communities, the crypto-asset industry, and others to develop effective, evidence-based environmental performance standards.”

Other recommendations included assessing and enforcing energy reliability in light of crypto mining projects, setting energy efficiency standards and research and monitoring.

The OSTP report is one of five due the same week. The Justice Department released a report on strengthening international law enforcement mandated in the EO in June and the Treasury Department reported on a framework for international engagement in July.

Trump Champions Bitcoin Mining, Vietnamese Increase Gold Buying, and More — Week in Review

Bitcoin could become a zero-emission network: Report

Bitcoin mining with flared gas and animal waste gases could help the world’s largest cryptocurrency on a path to becoming zero-emission money.

A pro-Bitcoin mining report from self-proclaimed philanthropist Daniel Batten has claimed that Bitcoin could become a zero-emission network.

The report builds upon data from the Bitcoin Mining Council to understand the impact of carbon-negative energy sources on Bitcoin’s (BTC) overall carbon footprint. Following an investigation and extrapolation of the results, it claims to then “predict when the entire Bitcoin network becomes a zero emission network.”

But how does the network become carbon-negative in the first place? Put simply, by combusting stranded methane gas to mine BTC that would have otherwise been emitted into the atmosphere. The study finds that this process, which already happens worldwide, reduces the network’s emissions by 63%.

“That means that the 1.57% of the Bitcoin network using carbon-negative sources have a -4.2% impact on the carbon intensity of the Bitcoin network.”

The study uses data from various flare gas BTC miners, including Crusoe Energy in Colorado, Jai Energy in Wyoming and Arthur Mining in Brazil. It also touches upon miners using waste gases from animal waste — such as those in Slovakia — to illustrate that Bitcoin mining can positively impact the environment by preventing the emission of harmful methane gases.

While central bankers and mainstream media continue to snipe at Bitcoin’s energy-intensive mining process, it appears that mining could be a viable route to cutting emissions. According to a report from the United Nations, “Cutting methane is the strongest lever we have to slow climate change over the next 25 years.” By eliminating gas flaring or animal waste biogas emissions, Bitcoin miners around the world are working toward the zero-emission goal. 

Cointelegraph reporter Joe Hall interviewed a Northern Irish farmer who recently began trialing Bitcoin mining. Owen, the farmer, told Cointelegraph that mining Bitcoin using farm waste emitting biogas that otherwise would have gone up into the atmosphere “makes sense.”

Owen, atop an anaerobic digester and in front of a Bitcoin mine, talks to Cointelegraph.

Owen partnered with Scilling Digital Mining, an Irish company that seeks out renewable energy to use for Bitcoin mining. In a nod to further adoption across Ireland, Mark Morton — managing director at Scilling — told Cointelegraph:

“Daniel [Batten] has done phenomenal work showcasing Bitcoin mining’s methane capture capability. The plaudits for these unfussy energy consumers are only just beginning, and Ireland’s farmers could be the next big adopters of this incredible technology.”

Morton added that “Bitcoin mining will be the catalyst for widespread small-scale, off-grid anaerobic digestion adoption leading to less farm waste, more decentralized network hash rate and lower agricultural emissions.” Farming is responsible for one-third of Irish greenhouse gas emissions, so capturing waste gas from farming could not only clean up the polluting farming industry but also earn extra revenue through mined BTC.

Related: Banking uses 56 times more energy than Bitcoin: Valuechain report

Batten, the report’s author, is an environmentalist who devotes his time to researching Bitcoin and energy consumption. Before advocating for environmentalism through Bitcoin mining, Batten was a philanthropist and venture capitalist.

During a remote presentation at Surfin’ Bitcoin over the weekend, he shared why Bitcoin mining has become his “most important mission.” In the presentation, he made a case for methane capture and stressed the urgency of climate change.

Trump Champions Bitcoin Mining, Vietnamese Increase Gold Buying, and More — Week in Review

US lawmakers appeal directly to 4 mining firms, requesting info on energy consumption

Four members of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce said they were "deeply concerned" that Proof-of-Work mining could increase demand for fossil fuels.

Four members of the United States House of Representatives from the Energy and Commerce Committee have demanded answers from four major crypto mining firms in regards to the potential effects of their energy consumption on the environment.

In letters dated Wednesday to Core Scientific, Marathon Digital Holdings, Riot Blockchain, and Stronghold Digital Mining, U.S. lawmakers Frank Pallone, Bobby Rush, Diana DeGette, and Paul Tonko requested the companies provide information from 2021 including the energy consumption of their mining facilities, the source of that energy, what percentage came from renewable energy sources, and how often the firms curtailed operations. The four members of the House committee also inquired as to the average cost per megawatt hour the companies spent mining crypto at each of their respective facilities.

“Blockchain technology holds immense promise that may make our personal information more secure and economy more efficient,” said the lawmakers in a letter to Riot CEO Jason Les. “However, the energy consumption and hardware required to support PoW-based cryptocurrencies may, in some instances, produce severe externalities in the form of harmful emissions and excess electronic waste.”

The request followed U.S. President Joe Biden signing the Inflation Reduction Act into law on Tuesday, a bill considered by many experts to be the biggest legislation in the fight against climate change. The bill included incentives to support and grow green energy projects, including clean transportation and “climate-smart” manufacturing.

“Given the existential threat posed by the climate crisis, we are deeply concerned about efforts like [Proof-of-Work mining] that increase demand for fossil fuels, with the potential to put new strain on our energy grid."

Related: Green and gold: The crypto projects saving the planet

Whether in discussion over its environmental or economic impact, cryptocurrency remains in the spotlight among many in government, both in the United States and abroad. In April, 23 U.S. lawmakers sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, urging administrator Michael Regan to assess crypto mining firms potentially violating environmental statutes.

Trump Champions Bitcoin Mining, Vietnamese Increase Gold Buying, and More — Week in Review

Carbon credit NFTs are only effective if burned, experts say

Environmental concerns plague both the crypto industry and the world at large. However, if used right, blockchain-based assets could offer some relief.

Using nonfungible tokens (NFTs) as carbon credits, or carbon offsets, reveals an outlet for Web3 technology to foster a more environmentally friendly future.

NFTs as carbon credits are a slow-rolling trend in the refinance market and decentralized finance (DeFi). Most of this activity currently takes place on the Polygon (MATIC) blockchain, as it has already offset its entire carbon footprint. However, the way these digital assets work with carbon credits differs from other ventures in the space.

Rather than a store of wealth or a piece of unique digital art, carbon credit NFTs serve as a repository of information related to a specific batch of carbon offsets.

This information could include, but is not limited to, the total number of offsets (i.e., how many metric tonnes), the vintage year of the removal, the project name, geographical location or the certification program utilized.

Such NFTs are then fractionalized into Ethereum-based ERC-20 tokens, fungible with each other.

However, unlike the majority of NFTs available to consumers, a properly functioning carbon credit NFT comes with a catch. In order for it to serve its true purpose, verifying and standing in for carbon emission offsets, it must be burned. In off-chain settings in the carbon market, this is called “retirement.”

A core member of KlimaDAO, a decentralized organization, using DeFi to fight climate change, explained to Cointelegraph how this works both on- and off-chain.

“Retirement means that someone is essentially taking that carbon offset, claiming it for its environmental benefit, meaning that they're basically offsetting their emissions. Then that carbon offset is permanently taken out of circulation and can no longer be traded or sold to anyone else.”

However, when it comes to retiring these carbon offsets in an on-chain setting, one must burn the token once the retirement certificate is obtained. In other words, it must be removed from the database and no longer available for trades.

It's very important that if there is any type of environmental claim being made regarding the offset being embedded in an NFT, that NFT is actually burned in some respect, and a specific entity or individual is named to claim that environmental incident.

There are a large number of projects popping up in the space that claim to implement NFT technology for carbon offsets, including carbonABLE and MintCarbon.

However, with a market value of over $850 billion, the carbon credit industry is not a small one. Like other profitable markets, it is susceptible to scams. As NFTs continue to rise in popularity, NFT scams become more prevalent

Related: Scams in GameFi: How to identify toxic NFT gaming projects

KlimaDAO stressed that projects that claim NFTs as carbon credits should also carry accreditation from internationally recognized standards. Principally, an endorsement from ICROA, or the International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance.

If not, projects with this claim should be looked at carefully before investing under that pretext. Although the carbon credit market is valuable, the way it operates is still vunknown to the masses.

“The thing is, you're combining Web3 with a market that isn't very well known. So, unfortunately, you do have various actors that are taking advantage of people.”

Nonetheless, these carbon offset NFTs could be really useful if fully disclosed because they would be doing what they promise. These offsets provide an injection of capital from some other source to maintain and develop a project. This could range from renewable energy generation to forest protection or reforestation.

Trump Champions Bitcoin Mining, Vietnamese Increase Gold Buying, and More — Week in Review

Blockchain’s environmental impact and how it can be used for carbon removal

Blockchain technology is on its way to being considered by organizations as a way to reduce carbon emissions and improve the environment.

Climate change has become an important issue over the years due to concerns over environmental changes caused by the emission of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Conversations have even reached the crypto space, and blockchain technology is being considered a potential tool to reduce carbon emissions.

Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) that use the proof-of-work (PoW) mining algorithm have come under scrutiny due to their alleged energy expenditure. To see where this scrutiny comes from, it first needs to be known how much energy is used when mining PoW cryptocurrencies.

Unfortunately, estimating the amount of energy necessary to mine Bitcoin and other PoW cryptocurrencies cannot be calculated directly. Instead, it can be estimated by looking at the network’s hash rate and the power usage of the mining setups of expensive graphics cards.

Initially, Bitcoin could be mined with a basic computer, but as the network matured, the mining difficulty increased, requiring nodes to use more computing power to mine a new block. Due to the increased power requirements, to mine Bitcoin today, one would need multiple graphics cards as well as cooling systems to stop them from overheating. This is what has led to the high energy usage of PoW networks like Bitcoin and Ethereum.

According to the New York Times, the Bitcoin network uses around 91 terawatt-hours (91 TWh) of electricity annually, which is more energy used than countries like Finland. Other sources put this number at 150 TWh per year, which is more energy than Argentina, a nation of 45 million people.

However, as mentioned earlier, calculating Bitcoin’s energy usage is not a straightforward task, and there have been disagreements about the actual energy usage of the Bitcoin network. For example, Digiconomist claimed that Bitcoin uses 0.82% of the world’s power (204 TWh) while Ethereum uses 0.34% (85 TWh). Ethereum developer Josh Stark disputed the accuracy of these claims and highlighted Digiconomist’s tendencies to place estimations on the higher end while pointing out data from the University of Cambridge that estimated Bitcoin’s actual consumption to be 39% lower (125 TWh).

Additional sources have agreed with Bitcoin’s energy expenditure being on the lower level. The Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index estimates that the Bitcoin network uses 92 TWh of energy per year. A research report by Michel Khazzaka also claims that traditional banking systems use 56 times more energy than Bitcoin.

R. A. Wilson, chief technology officer of 1GCX — a global digital asset and carbon credit exchange — told Cointelegraph, “To say that Bitcoin is ‘bad’ for the environment leaves a number of nuances and important conversations unexplored. It’s true that Bitcoin and other proof-of-work chains do consume larger quantities of energy than blockchains that operate on a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism. However, there are a number of other considerations to take into account when analyzing and understanding the energy consumption of Bitcoin and blockchain in general.”

Recent: How Bitcoin whales make a splash in markets and move prices

“For example, the sheer amount of energy consumed doesn’t directly equate to environmental impact. It is also important to understand where that energy is coming from. Currently, Bitcoin miners use around 55%–65% renewable energy, which is impressive for an industry so relatively young. Comparatively, the sustainable energy mix in the United States is only 30%. Bitcoin can, therefore, continue to incentivize the rise in renewable energy sources within the crypto mining industry and in the U.S. more broadly.”

There may be no clear consensus on the environmental impact of cryptocurrency mining on PoW networks. Still, there has been a push toward using blockchain to become more energy-efficient and improve the environment. As a result, sustainable energy sources for Bitcoin mining have also grown by almost 60% this year. Blockchain is also being used to help remove carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. In some areas, blockchain technology is being used alongside carbon credits to try to improve the atmosphere.

What are carbon credits?

It is common to see the terms “carbon offset” and “carbon credit” used interchangeably, but they have different meanings. A carbon offset refers to an action that intends to compensate for the emission of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Examples of carbon offsets include planting trees, reforestation and using renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels. 

A carbon credit permits an organization to produce a certain amount of greenhouse gasses depending on how many credits they own. One carbon credit represents one ton of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gasses. Organizations receive a set amount of credits, meaning they can only produce a limited amount of greenhouse emissions.

Entities that produce emissions above the limit must purchase more credits, while entities that produce emissions below the limit can sell any leftover credits. The scheme works by providing a financial incentive for polluting entities to produce fewer greenhouse gasses. If their emissions stay below the limit, they can save or make money (by selling credits), while they lose money by producing emissions above the limit.

Wilson believes that blockchain technology can help the carbon offsets industry: “The carbon offsets industry has the potential to scale to a multitrillion-dollar market over the next several years, but it currently suffers from a number of obstacles including fraud and duplication of credits. The immutability and security of blockchain technology can help solve these challenges by ensuring that all records of carbon credit sales are responsibly and accurately tracked.”

“While blockchain technology alone cannot solve these problems in the market, a combination of blockchain and associated infrastructural services such as digital exchanges, a global registry and Anti-Money Laundering/Know Your Customer for purchase, creation and retirement can help to vastly improve existing bottlenecks,” he continued.

How organizations use blockchain to reduce emissions

EarthFund is one platform where users can donate cryptocurrency, mainly Tether (USDT), to different environmentally friendly causes on the platform. The platform also has a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) and houses a treasury that allows DAO members to decide how the funds are used. Smaller communities within the ecosystem choose which causes get highlighted for donations. Carbon capture and storage, as well as renewable technologies and conservation, are some of the areas that are explored when it comes to improving the environment.

Toucan is another platform that has created tokenized carbon credits, which are crypto tokens backed by real-world carbon offset credits. The carbon offsets are represented on-chain as Base Carbon Tonnes (BCT). In November 2021, Mark Cuban stated that he had bought $50,000 worth of carbon offsets every 10 days and placed them on-chain as BCT.

Traditional organizations and governing bodies have also looked to blockchain technology as a possible solution to reducing carbon emissions. Last year, for example,the United Nations Environment Programme and other governing bodies came together at the Middle East and North Africa Climate Week to look at blockchain’s potential for tackling climate change.

In April 2022, Algorand announced that its blockchain was entirely carbon neutral. This is achieved through its pure proof-of-stake mining algorithm, which doesn’t involve any mining but instead relies on a process where validators are randomly selected to verify the next block.

Recent: Proof-of-work: The Bitcoin artists on minting NFTs and OpenSea

Organizations in the crypto space are looking toward improving the ecosystem through blockchain-tracked donations to carbon removal projects, tokenized carbon credits and carbon-neutral blockchains.

Finally, Ethereum 2.0 is on the horizon, which will see the blockchain network transition from a PoW consensus algorithm to proof-of-stake, as well as some additional changes. PoS does not require mining hardware to validate blocks, drastically reducing its energy consumption. Due to a lower amount of energy being used to power the network, fewer fossil fuels will be burned, reducing the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere.

Trump Champions Bitcoin Mining, Vietnamese Increase Gold Buying, and More — Week in Review

Sweden Needs Power for More Useful Things Than Bitcoin Mining, Energy Minister Says

Sweden Needs Power for More Useful Things Than Bitcoin Mining, Energy Minister SaysConcerned about projected increase in electricity demand, the government in Sweden may turn its back on crypto mining, the country’s energy minister has indicated. Swedish bitcoin minting industry, a leader in Europe, is likely to soon lose the preferential treatment it has been taking advantage of for some time, a media report revealed. Crypto Miners […]

Trump Champions Bitcoin Mining, Vietnamese Increase Gold Buying, and More — Week in Review

Crypto Mobile Payments Platform Suffers Network Outage but Says Funds Are Secure

Crypto Mobile Payments Platform Suffers Network Outage but Says Funds Are Secure

Blockchain-based global payments platform Celo suffered a brief network interruption for the first time in over two years. In a series of posts beginning on Wednesday, Celo provided a rolling tally of updates via Twitter to alert users that its network had stalled, while also explicitly stating that all user funds were safe. An early […]

The post Crypto Mobile Payments Platform Suffers Network Outage but Says Funds Are Secure appeared first on The Daily Hodl.

Trump Champions Bitcoin Mining, Vietnamese Increase Gold Buying, and More — Week in Review

US lawmakers urge EPA to consider the potential benefits of crypto mining

“Digital assets, and their related mining activities, are essential to the economic future of the United States," said the group of 14 lawmakers.

A group of 14 United States senators and House representatives have signed a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency extolling what they believe are the benefits of crypto mining.

In a Thursday letter, many U.S. lawmakers including pro-Bitcoin Senator Cynthia Lummis and Representative Tom Emmer addressed EPA administrator Michael Regan, requesting the government agency analyze the potential impact of crypto mining in an effort to balance innovation with environmental concerns. The group of 14 senators and representatives claimed mining could have a “substantial stabilizing effect on energy grids” and cited examples of mining operations using flared gas and renewable energy sources.

“Digital assets, and their related mining activities, are essential to the economic future of the United States," said the letter. “Favoring one technology over another, including proof-of-work versus proof-of-stake, can stifle innovation, erode future economic gains, and limit affiliated efficiencies.”

In addition to Lummis and Emmer, the lawmakers who signed the letter were all members of the Republican Party, including Senators Bill Hagerty, Kevin Cramer, and Steve Daines. House Representatives Patrick McHenry, Pete Sessions, Bill Posey, Bill Huizenga, Andy Barr, Anthony Gonzales, Brian Steil, William Timmons, and Ralph Norman also approved the message to EPA administrator Regan.

The Republicans’ request to Regan stood in contrast to an April letter to the EPA from a bipartisan group of 22 lawmakers. They raised “serious concerns” around crypto firms operating in the United States, claiming that the companies contributed to greenhouse gas emissions and were not operating in accordance with either the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act.

“Cryptocurrency mining is poisoning our communities,” said the April letter to Regan. “The rapidly expanding cryptocurrency industry needs to be held accountable to ensure it operates in a sustainable and just manner to protect communities.”

Related: Eager to work: Bitcoin switch to proof-of-stake remains unlikely

In May, the Bitcoin Mining Council responded to the April letter with one of its own, alleging many of the lawmakers’ claims on mining were inaccurate. Many environmental groups, including Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, later urged government agencies under the Biden administration to implement new approaches in their response to crypto mining.

Trump Champions Bitcoin Mining, Vietnamese Increase Gold Buying, and More — Week in Review

‘Buy Bitcoin, plant a tree, lower your time preference’: a Sequoia story

“I'm trying to get people to plant trees," says Fangorn, a green-fingered Bitcoiner, "as an avenue for low-time preference.”

When the market falls faster than a tree in the forest, the phrases “zoom out,” and “lower your time preference,” take root.

“Zoom out” refers to taking a break from the omnipresent price charts that populate news feeds and Twitter threads. Consider looking at the price of Bitcoin (BTC) over the past five years–as opposed to over the past 6,12 or 18 months.

HODLing Bitcoin has far outperformed HODLing stocks over the past five years. 

But what does “lower your time preference,”–popular parlance among Bitcoiners, actually mean? Commonly attributed to Saifedean Ammous, the polarizing author who penned The Bitcoin Standard, lowering one’s time preference translates to thinking long-term, and to valuing the future over the present.

In contrast to a fiat standard, where money loses value due to inflation; a system in which quick gains, immediate satisfaction, and instant gratification make the medicine go down, a Bitcoin standard promotes delayed gratification. The theory is that in a Bitcoin Standard, the value of money saved in Bitcoin goes up over time to be enjoyed at a later stage.

This lesson is a tough pill to swallow, (particularly during a crypto winter) but it's a vital step to understanding Bitcoin. At least, that’s what Fangorn, a passionate Bitcoiner turned tree-planter believes. A software developer and history major with a background in biology, he stumbled across Bitcoin on a Hacker News site in the summer of 2017 (when one BTC was worth around $3,000).

Something twigged during 2017 and 2018, but it took the Covid-19 market crash of 2020 for Fangorn to really “go down the rabbit hole.” He read more broadly, engaging with popular Bitcoin author Gigi’s works, who wrote 21 lessons as well as an article called Bitcoin is Time. At this point, a lightbulb went off:

“Holy shit, this [Bitcoin] is way more than just like digital gold. This is profoundly advanced engineering for civilization.”

His appetite for understanding sound money grew and he hasn’t “looked back since.” He shared “the one thing to focus on is Bitcoin–the rest is a bunch of fluff.”

Sequoias are the largest trees in the world. What better way to visualize a low-time preference? Source: Twitter

An outdoorsy family man with a penchant for planting trees–he regularly gifts his father Sequoia trees for Father’s Day–Fangorn’s ideas, much like the giant trees, began to germinate. He connected the dots between a low-time preference, Sequoia trees, and the Bitcoin network:

“I can look at these trees when I’m 100 years old and think, damn it’s going to persist for another 3,000 years. And my grandkids’, grandkids’, grandkids’ will think ‘Thanks, great great grandpa for planting this tree thousands of years ago!”

Like many Bitcoiners, Fangorn has faith that the Bitcoin network will sustain civilization as sound money for years to come. Moreover, Bitcoin and Sequoias are pretty similar, they take “a lot of work, they stand the test of time, and they lift the human spirit.”

“Here’s this thing that allows us to cast our minds forward for thousands of years, plan long term, and reconnect with that core aspect of civilization, which is lowering one's time preference and planning for the future.”

Indeed, while Bitcoin is a tool famed for its “number go up” properties, it’s also a tool that allows for securing a long-term outlook.

He shares that “planting trees is a super easy, super cost effective way of explaining” what a low-time preference is. The tree is a visual representation of a low-time preference; the roots are the network. Moreover, planting trees flies in the face of the environmental FUD to which Bitcoin is often subjected.

Fangorn encourages Bitcoiners and no-coiners to plant trees to visualize a low-time preference. He shipped seeds to Andre Loja, the man behind the island of Madeira’s Bitcoin strategy; he distributed seeds at the Bitcoin Miami conference in 2022 as well as at meetups in Winsconsin where he resides.

The Sequoia seeds received by Andre Loja in Madeira. Souce: Loja

He jokes that when Hal Finney (the first person to receive a Bitcoin transaction) comes round from his cryogenic freeze, “In 3,000 years, I want there to be 21 million trees that are fully grown and 30 feet in diameter–trees that were planted in the first few epochs.”

Bitcoin will enter its fourth epoch sometime in 2024 and its last epoch–when the last Bitcoin is mined–in the year 2140. By 2140, the Sequoia seeds Fangorn and other Bitcoiners plant now will still be considered young trees: they reach full maturity after 500 years.

For Fangorn, the Bitcoin mined today should still be in existence, maybe even used to pay for goods and services by his great-great-grandchildren.

Trump Champions Bitcoin Mining, Vietnamese Increase Gold Buying, and More — Week in Review

Bitcoin and banking’s differing energy narratives are a matter of perspective

Bitcoin mining’s climate impact has been heavily criticized, but the emissions of corporate cash and investments have often flown under the radar.

The Carbon Bankroll Report was released on May 17 as a collaboration among the Climate Safe Lending Network, The Outdoor Policy Outfit and Bank FWD. The collaboration made it possible to calculate the emissions generated due to a company’s cash and investments, such as cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities.

The report revealed that for several large companies, such as Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft and Salesforce, the cash and investments are their largest source of emissions.

The energy consumption of the flagship proof-of-work (PoW) blockchain network, Bitcoin, has been a matter of debate in which the network and its participants, especially miners, are criticized for contributing to an ecosystem that might be worsening climate change. However, recent findings have also brought the carbon impact of traditional investments under the radar.

Bitcoin is often vilified due to “imagery”

The Carbon Bankroll Report was drafted by James Vaccaro, executive director at the Climate Safe Lending Network, and Paul Moinester, executive director and founder of the Outdoor Policy Outfit. Regarding the impact of the report, Jamie Beck Alexander, director of Drawdown Labs, stated:

“Until now, the role that corporate banking practices play in fueling the climate crisis has been murky at its best. This landmark report shines a floodlight. The research and findings contained in this report offer companies a new, massively important opportunity to help shift our financial system away from fossil fuels and deforestation toward climate solutions on a global scale. Companies that are serious about their climate pledges will welcome this breakthrough and move urgently toward tapping this lever for systematic change.”

A few metrics that the report highlighted regarding the climatic impact of the banking industry include:

  • Since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015, 60 of the world’s largest commercial and investment banks have invested $4.6 trillion in the fossil fuel industry.
  • Banks such as Citi, Wells Fargo and Bank of America have invested $1.2 billion in said industry.
  • The largest banks and asset managers in the United States have been responsible for financing the equivalent of 1.968 billion tons of carbon dioxide. If the U.S. financial sector were a country, it would be the fifth-largest emitter in the world, just after Russia.
  • When compared to the direct operational emissions of global financial firms, the emissions generated through investing, lending and underwriting activities are 700 times higher.

Cointelegraph spoke with Cameron Collins, an investment analyst at Viridi Funds — a crypto investment fund manager — about the reasons behind the excessive vilification of the Bitcoin network. He said: 

“It’s easy to picture a warehouse of high-performance computers sucking down power, but it’s not so easy to picture the downstream effects of cash in circulation financing carbon-intensive activities. More often than not, it’s this imagery that demonizes Bitcoin mining. In reality, the entire banking system uses more electricity in operations than that of the Bitcoin mining industry.”

In addition to the portrayed “imagery,” there have been various efforts to track the exact energy consumption of operating the Bitcoin network. One of the most widely accepted metrics for this complex variable is calculated by the Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance and is known as the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index (CBECI).

At the time of writing, the index estimates that the annualized consumption of energy by the Bitcoin network is 117.71 terawatt-hours (TWh). The CBECI model uses various parameters such as network hash rate, miner fees, mining difficulty, mining equipment efficiency, electricity cost and power usage effectiveness to compute the annualized consumption for the network.

The growth in the number of participants and related activity on the Bitcoin network is evident in the monthly electricity consumption of the network. From January 2017 to May 2022, the monthly electricity consumption has multiplied over 17 times from 0.62 TWh to currently standing at 10.67 TWh. In comparison, companies such as PayPal, Alphabet and Netflix have witnessed their carbon emissions multiplied by 55, 38 and 10 times, respectively.

Collins spoke further about the perception of the Bitcoin network that could be changed in the future. He added that if more people approached Bitcoin (BTC) mining as a financial service as opposed to mining, sentiment surrounding PoW networks might begin to change, and the public may appreciate it more as an essential service as opposed to a reckless gold rush. He also highlighted the role of thought leaders in the community in conveying the true nature of Bitcoin mining to policymakers and the public at large.

Working together to solve the energy problem

Recently, there have been several examples of the Bitcoin mining community collaborating with the energy industry — and vice-versa — to work on methodologies beneficial for both parties. The American Energy company, Crusoe Energy, is repurposing wasted fuel energy to power Bitcoin mining, starting in Oman. The country exports 23% of its total gas production and aims to reduce gas flaring to an absolute zero by 2030.

Even the United States energy giant ExxonMobil couldn’t help but get in on the action. In March this year, it was revealed that Crusoe Energy had inked a deal with ExxonMobil to use excess gas from oil wells in North Dakota to run Bitcoin miners. Traditionally, energy companies resort to a process known as gas flaring to get rid of the excess gas from oil wells.

Related: Stranded no more? Bitcoin miners could help solve Big Oil’s gas problem

A report released by the Bitcoin Mining Council in January revealed that the Bitcoin mining industry increased the sustainable energy mix of its consumption by nearly 59% between 2020 and 2021. The Bitcoin Mining Council is a group of 44 Bitcoin mining companies that represent over 50% of the entire network’s mining power.

Cointelegraph spoke to Bryan Routledge, associate professor of finance at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business, about the comparison between the carbon emissions from Bitcoin and traditional banking.

He stated, “Bitcoin (blockchain) is a record-keeping technology. Is there another protocol that would be comparably secure but not as energy costly as PoW? There are certainly lots of people working on that. Similarly, we can compare Bitcoin to record-keeping financial transactions in regular banks.”

The block reward for mining a block of Bitcoin currently stands at 6.25 BTC, over $190,000 as per current prices, and the current average number of transactions per block stands around 1,620 as per data from Blockchain.com. This entails that the average reward of one transaction could be estimated to be over $117, a reasonable reward for a single transaction.

Routledge further added, “Traditional banks are a far larger size and so, in aggregate, have a large impact on the environment. But for many transactions, there is a much lower per-transaction cost — e.g., an ATM fee. BTC has lots of benefits, arguably. But surely becoming more efficient seems an important step.”

Since gauging the true impact of Bitcoin is not really a quantifiable effort due to the significant change that the technology and the currency represent, it is important to remember that the energy consumption of Bitcoin can’t be vilified in an isolated manner. The global financial community often tends to forget the high impact of the current banking system that is not offset by corporate social responsibility and other incentives alone.

Trump Champions Bitcoin Mining, Vietnamese Increase Gold Buying, and More — Week in Review