Hm. This article is rather terse. > The energy it uses could power all kettles used in the UK for 27 years, it said. Comparisons like this only say "one thing

Hm. This article is rather terse. > The energy it uses could power all kettles used in the UK for 27 years, it said. Comparisons like this only say "one thing consumes more power then another thing". But that's only the tip of the iceberg. It doesn't tell the whole story. The article doesn't go on to ask the bigger questions. What's the fraction of global power consumption that's dedicated to Bitcoin? What's the fraction of fossil fuel based versus renewable power consumed by Bitcoin? In what respects does Bitcoin power consumption affect pricing of power on the energy market? Does Bitcoin power consumption directly affect power availability in households and industries? How does this compare between different regions across the globe? Arguably, mining Bitcoinis going to have a massive environmental hit if a miner relies on power generated by a coal plant, or a hydrothermal plant. Two extreme examples come to mind would be a "dark" mining operation in a non-descript sub-urban building in mainland China, versus a mining operation in Iceland. To my mind, Bitcoin as a "power hog" isn't the primary issue. The big issue is energy production, delivery and consumption as a whole. Bitcoin is the business case that painfully shows the shortcomings and the inequities in today's energy markets. I think Bitcoin should prompt us to find answers to these questions. > "It turned around and spent $1.5bn on Bitcoin, which is mostly mined with electricity from coal. Their subsidy needs to be examined." That's just token support on the part of Tesla. Moreover, the problem with this criticism is that it attacks a brand, and does not address the underlying problem. Arguably, Tesla or Apple or Samsung could also be condemned for using natural resources such as rare metals which come with a massive environmental impact as well. All of that is - ultimately - an example of large private actors externalizing the costs, the impact, associated with their products and services towards society and the biosphere. And that's not a new tale. I think that Tesla buying $1.5bn in and of itself is rather inconsequential towards driving this notion home. In that regard, the article fails to show the bigger picture and inadvertently ends up painting investing in Bitcoin as "morally wrong". Something which - historically - has always been the case (see: Usury - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury). Only now, it uses a weird, nonsensical argument - "it could power all kettles used in the UK for 27 years" - to make that case.