2. The narrative being created of Bitcoin as bad for the environment or consuming large amounts of energy
Advanced Civilizations use more Energy than inferior ones.
Energy is abundant in the Universe.
Energy discussions these days involve a lot of political posturing as opposed to objective reasoning.
It is difficult to discuss energy without entering the realm of politics. I would try and avoid that hornets nest of discussion. In the end, one's political beliefs about energy affect everything such as housing, trains, etc and should not be specifically about Bitcoin. As we are seeing, with "Clean energy" getting cheaper, the free market automatically moves to embrace it - including Bitcoin.
This Post is more about those who isolate Bitcoin alone in energy criticism.
Usually these accusations are made on social media, or in old media, by writers lacking the self awareness of their own energy usage.
They would be more believable with their critic if they wrote their concern in Sand using a stick so as not to "burn energy" rather than the datacenters or TV studios of media companies.
These writers never raised a concern with the rising energy consumption of Facebook for example:
https://pasteboard.co/JVd86hpK.jpgFor those reading this post, even using this very website uses energy.
(Servers, Datacenters, routers, laptops, phones to consume the content)
Bitcoin transverses the Digital and the monetary Space.
So I include here a snapshot of Bitcoin Carbon Footprint as compared to Data Centers and Digital media
https://pasteboard.co/JVd5Fz0.jpgAs well as a comparison of Bitcoin with what it seeks to replace:
Bitcoin vs Gold vs Fiat =
https://pasteboard.co/JVda5WL.jpgStaying on the topic of what Bitcoin seeks to replace:
How "clean" is Gold mining?
I could post some really horrible pictures of what that industry has done physically to the environment talk less of the energy required to Mine Gold. It is not very pretty.
How "clean" and energy costly is the Fiat Banking system? I would not touch on obvious energy costs of its Datacenters or printing of its cash.
For this one, I would mention the cost of the war machines that back this system.
For example the US Military is the largest single Consumer of Energy in the the world.
Those same writers never seem to mention this.
That is just part of the energy costs of what it takes to back the World Fiat reserve currency.
Apart from that, many of the old media reports on Bitcoin are littered with logical fallacies
They mention the cost of energy and point to its number of transactions.
However, most of its energy use is not in its transactions but rather in mining new Bitcoin, of which 90% have already been mined.
I believe that Bitcoin is actually good for the environment. Imagine moving value long distances the "old way". By loading up Gold on one of the ships stuck in the Suez canal.
Instead one can just post that same value to a Bitcoin address and have it settled within 10mins.
Mining, Storing, transporting Gold? Come on!
If the concern is the energy costs and the environment, the faster Bitcoin replaces Gold as a store of value, the better for the Planet.
thanks,
JF
PS: For some interesting takes on Bitcoin energy as well as Bitcoin in general one may read the shareholder letter by the Norwegian company Seetee (subsidiary of Oil company Aker):
https://www.seetee.io/static/shareholder_letter-6ae7e85717c28831bf1c0eca1d632722.pdfFor some more technical aspects of Bitcoin energy, one may look at some of the writing of Nic Carter:
https://www.coindesk.com/author/nic-carter