The military industrial complex, petrodollar system and endless wars seem more quantifiable than any "climate damages" measured in a dollar cost. You can simpl

The military industrial complex, petrodollar system and endless wars seem more quantifiable than any "climate damages" measured in a dollar cost. You can simply observe the number of deaths. Even harder to measure the lost economic productivity created by price fixing. BTC's popularity among speculators is arguably due to artificially cheap credit and economic manipulation. If you accept that you can attribute these so called "climate costs" back to central banking. The entire premise has so many elite promotions baked in that it becomes hard to approach logically. For me the headline reads as pure nonsense. I'd hoped true believers of central planning and anthropogenic climate apocalypse would find some of these leaps a bit too far. The comments read as a false dichotomy between bitcoin absolutists and warmists. Cryptocurrencies can operate without the energy usage of bitcoin. Subjective value tells us that individuals will have different preferences for energy consumption. We don't have to agree that it is efficient or demand that everyone agree on a preference for efficiency as we define it. The other goalpost of the dichotomy is more like a high voltage line. Instead of electrocuting myself and opening a debate on climate change, I'd prefer to simply note that many disagree for a variety of philosophical or scientific reasons.