Is Bitcoin good for the environment?

It is deceptively easy to cite energy statistics about Bitcoin mining as evidence that it is bad for the environment. Nevertheless, civilizations have always expended energy on new technologies that initially appeared to be terrible for the environment, such as railways, highways, telephone lines, batteries, natural resource mines or computers, among endless examples.

Virtually all industrial activity is harmful to the environment. The more relevant question is not whether Bitcoin mining is bad for the environment per se, but rather ⏤ as with any other use of power ⏤ Is the activity worth it?

Indeed, a closer examination of Bitcoin statistics makes it impossible to summarily assume that Bitcoin is bad for the environment, especially compared to other unquestioned uses of power such as holiday lights or video games.

For example, the Bitcoin Mining Council’s second quarter report indicates that Bitcoin mining uses 189 TWh of electricity in a single year, compared to 162,194 TWh of energy used for all purposes by the entire world. It is curious to consider the media’s fixation on a new technology that uses less than 0.2% of the world’s energy.

Compared to Bitcoin’s 189 TWh, consider the energy use of China (39,361 TWh) or the United States (29,291 TWh). Even consider the amount of energy wasted due to simple grid inefficiencies each year (50,000 TWh) ⏤ 264 times more than Bitcoin.

White House Research on Bitcoin and the Environment

Bitcoin miners traditionally search for affordable sources of energy, including stranded and renewable sources. The Bitcoin Mining Council, which collects data from the majority of Bitcoin’s hashrate, estimates that 59% of the energy used by bitcoin miners came from renewable sources in Q2 2022. In fact, Bitcoin’s use of renewable energy sources increased by 6% compared to the same quarter in 2021.

Also, due to the easy portability of Bitcoin miners, Bitcoin is uniquely suited to reduce stranded energy sources such as gas wells and flares.

Of course, these statistics haven’t stopped opponents of Bitcoin from spreading misinformation about its energy use. The Biden administration commissioned a report on cryptomining’s climate impact that experts like Nic Carter called unscientific and full of errors.

Carter claimed that the report “would not receive a passing grade in a higher level university course” (our emphasis). He accused the White House of pursuing a political agenda wrapped in the cloak of climate change.

Read More: Bitcoin Mining CEO Predicts Energy Companies Will Dominate Crypto

Nic Carter has repeatedly criticized journalists for having the facts about Bitcoin mining wrong. For example, he accused the New York Times of citing critically flawed academic articles and dismissed studies that Mora et al.

Bitcoin’s long history of aversion to lobbyists

Despite the New York Times’ claims to the contrary, Bitcoin has no plans to switch to a Proof-of-Stake algorithm like Ethereum. Nor are Bitcoiners likely to allow lobbyists like Greenpeace to influence Bitcoin regulations with expensive ad campaigns.

Bitcoin developers have a history of ignoring pressure from corporate interests. They famously rejected a corporate-led initiative called The New York Agreement to increase Bitcon’s blockchain size, which would have led to greater centralization.

House Democrats sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urging it to rein in Bitcoin’s energy use, claiming, “A single Bitcoin transaction can power the average American household for a month.” By this logic, a single submarine, bank vault, highway, data center or gold mine uses the same current like entire neighborhoods for a month, so the EPA should urgently adopt rules to curb emissions from them as well.