4 ms·

How much carbon is released by manufacturing, storing, and transporting physical currency? Why not shut that down instead?

by imgabe 6y ago

arcticbull 6y ago
Because we can prove by induction. If a Visa transaction consumed as much power as a single Bitcoin payment, Visa alone would consume 3X as much power as the entire world generates and be responsible for 100% of the world's e-waste production. A single Bitcoin transaction now consumes 30 days of power for the average household, as much as it takes a Tesla to drive from SF to well past New York, at this point closer to SF-NY-Miami. And generates half an iPhone of e-waste (100g). It also consumes 5X as much energy as mining gold, which is the second worst option. [1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
- imgabe 6y ago
  Visa is not physical currency, that’s not what I asked. Electricity can be generated from zero carbon means, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc. There’s an order of magnitude more solar energy hitting the Earth every day than humans ever use. Instead of stopping progress and living in the past, we can find a better way to make use of it.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Doesn't solve the e-waste generation, the arms race to increase hash rate creates 100g of e-waste per transaction. Devastating for the planet of course and utterly insufficient for anything bigger than a Costco. Just how much power do you think physical currency consumes? Data, citations, estimates please. Because I know handing a $10 bill to my buddy consumes 0kWh, and doing the same with Bitcoin costs $20 and consumes 30 days of power. If you want progress you'll have to do something that moves the world forward not warms it up.
    - imgabe 6y ago
      e-waste can be recycled, useful metals can be reclaimed. It doesn’t matter how much power it uses if it’s switched to solar, and there are lower power options like proof-of-stake coming online anyway. The relevant metric is tons of CO2 released, not kWh used. Bitcoin could be run with zero CO2 released if we chose to, in which case shutting it down would do absolutely nothing in regard to climate change.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        [1, 2] does not suggest that recycling of e-waste actually happens. Solve that first, power supply second, then re-enable Bitcoin mining and you've got my vote. Basically, it can't really be economically recycled, and it isn't. It's just thrown in heaps where poor folks in developing nations scrabble through the toxic remains. "Useful metals" is a few grams of gold, tin and copper. The rest is plastics (non-recyclables) and FR4 (epoxy filled fiberglass). Fiberglass is also not recyclable. Your plan amounts to little more than greenwashing. > Recyclers can make money from selling scavenged metal from electronic equipment, says Puckett, but the process to retrieve usable metals is typically extremely toxic. Workers who remove the metals often have no protective equipment and breathe in high levels of toxic chemicals, which are then released into the atmosphere. And most of the countries where the processing takes place -- China, India, Ghana, Pakistan -- do not have regulations in place to protect workers or prevent the primitive recycling operations. Most of electronics is plastic (epoxy is a plastic), and by and large plastic simply isn't recyclable. That's one of "mother's little lies" the plastic industry has been telling you for years to feel better about consumption. Reducing waste is the only way. [1] https://recyclenation.com/2017/04/where-does-e-waste-end-up/ https://recyclenation.com/2017/04/where-does-e-waste-end-up/ [2] https://www.npr.org/2010/12/21/132204954/after-dump-what-happens-to-electronic-waste https://www.npr.org/2010/12/21/132204954/after-dump-what-hap...
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    [1, 2] does not suggest that recycling of e-waste actually happens. Solve that first, power supply second, then re-enable Bitcoin mining and you've got my vote. Basically, it can't really be economically recycled, and it isn't. It's just thrown in heaps where poor folks in developing nations scrabble through the toxic remains. "Useful metals" is a few grams of gold and copper. The rest is plastics (non-recyclables) and FR4 (epoxy filled fiberglass). Fiberglass is also not recyclable. Your plan amounts to little more than greenwashing. [1] https://recyclenation.com/2017/04/where-does-e-waste-end-up/ https://recyclenation.com/2017/04/where-does-e-waste-end-up/ [2] https://www.npr.org/2010/12/21/132204954/after-dump-what-happens-to-electronic-waste https://www.npr.org/2010/12/21/132204954/after-dump-what-hap...
  - vesinisa 6y ago
    What is with this Bitcoin & infinite renewables fantasy? You want to compare Bitcoin to resource use of paper money, and then claim Bitcoin's electricity use is anyway irrelevant since humanity could theoretically harvest almost infinite energy from sun (someone just needs to build and maintain the infrastructure.) Meanwhile in reality, Bitcoin's security and value is actually backed by the very scarcity of electricity (computing power) you want to deny, and almost all Bitcoin is mined with the dirtiest, cheapest and most climate unfriendly energy available: Chinese coal.
- haswell 6y ago
  While I agree with the general sentiment that Bitcoin's energy consumption is a huge problem, I have a problem with these as arguments in isolation. Most would not claim that a Visa transaction and a Bitcoin payment are close to equivalent (the article you linked even acknowledges this). Mining gold is a more interesting comparison, but even though I can go start mining Bitcoin right now, I can't go start mining gold. The article provides a more thoughtful exploration that gets into some of the nuance and makes a stronger case against mining. I mention this because someone reading your comment might be tempted to discard it outright because "those comparisons make no sense". To those people: read the article.
anyfoo 6y ago
Every time I read an argument like that, I wonder whether the author actually looked into how cryptocurrencies work. They have burning of resources built in. Proof of work, their primary mechanism so far, is literally: Waste energy on meaningless computations, until you hit a "lucky" one, with all previous computations having no inherent value themselves. Physical currencies don't have this inefficiency built into their core. In fact, unlike cryptocurrencies, it's in everyone's best interest to make the currency's operation as efficient as possible.
- swader999 6y ago
  The usd is backed by the U.S. Military, not exactly a net zero proposition.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Nope, the U.S. is backed by the U.S. military, the currency is a freeloader. Whether the currency was bits of string, fiat dollars or Bitcoin, the U.S. military would be the exact same size. Because the military doesn't run around like a body guard for dollar bills, it furthers America's sovereign interests wherever those happen to be located.
    - swader999 6y ago
      Tell that to Libya.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        What should I tell them exactly? That the size of the US Army will be exactly the same no matter what currency America uses? I think they already know that.
  - anyfoo 6y ago
    So if the world switched to 100% bitcoin, the militaries of the world would cease to exist?

How much carbon is released by manufacturing, storing, and transporting physical currency? Why not shut that down instead?

by imgabe 6y ago

How much carbon is released by manufacturing, storing, and transporting physical currency? Why not shut that down instead?

arcticbull 6y ago

Because we can prove by induction. If a Visa transaction consumed as much power as a single Bitcoin payment, Visa alone would consume 3X as much power as the entire world generates and be responsible for 100% of the world's e-waste production. A single Bitcoin transaction now consumes 30 days of power for the average household, as much as it takes a Tesla to drive from SF to well past New York, at this point closer to SF-NY-Miami. And generates half an iPhone of e-waste (100g). It also consumes 5X as much energy as mining gold, which is the second worst option. [1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

imgabe 6y ago
Visa is not physical currency, that’s not what I asked. Electricity can be generated from zero carbon means, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc. There’s an order of magnitude more solar energy hitting the Earth every day than humans ever use. Instead of stopping progress and living in the past, we can find a better way to make use of it.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Doesn't solve the e-waste generation, the arms race to increase hash rate creates 100g of e-waste per transaction. Devastating for the planet of course and utterly insufficient for anything bigger than a Costco. Just how much power do you think physical currency consumes? Data, citations, estimates please. Because I know handing a $10 bill to my buddy consumes 0kWh, and doing the same with Bitcoin costs $20 and consumes 30 days of power. If you want progress you'll have to do something that moves the world forward not warms it up.
  - imgabe 6y ago
    e-waste can be recycled, useful metals can be reclaimed. It doesn’t matter how much power it uses if it’s switched to solar, and there are lower power options like proof-of-stake coming online anyway. The relevant metric is tons of CO2 released, not kWh used. Bitcoin could be run with zero CO2 released if we chose to, in which case shutting it down would do absolutely nothing in regard to climate change.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      [1, 2] does not suggest that recycling of e-waste actually happens. Solve that first, power supply second, then re-enable Bitcoin mining and you've got my vote. Basically, it can't really be economically recycled, and it isn't. It's just thrown in heaps where poor folks in developing nations scrabble through the toxic remains. "Useful metals" is a few grams of gold, tin and copper. The rest is plastics (non-recyclables) and FR4 (epoxy filled fiberglass). Fiberglass is also not recyclable. Your plan amounts to little more than greenwashing. > Recyclers can make money from selling scavenged metal from electronic equipment, says Puckett, but the process to retrieve usable metals is typically extremely toxic. Workers who remove the metals often have no protective equipment and breathe in high levels of toxic chemicals, which are then released into the atmosphere. And most of the countries where the processing takes place -- China, India, Ghana, Pakistan -- do not have regulations in place to protect workers or prevent the primitive recycling operations. Most of electronics is plastic (epoxy is a plastic), and by and large plastic simply isn't recyclable. That's one of "mother's little lies" the plastic industry has been telling you for years to feel better about consumption. Reducing waste is the only way. [1] https://recyclenation.com/2017/04/where-does-e-waste-end-up/ https://recyclenation.com/2017/04/where-does-e-waste-end-up/ [2] https://www.npr.org/2010/12/21/132204954/after-dump-what-happens-to-electronic-waste https://www.npr.org/2010/12/21/132204954/after-dump-what-hap...
- arcticbull 6y ago
  [1, 2] does not suggest that recycling of e-waste actually happens. Solve that first, power supply second, then re-enable Bitcoin mining and you've got my vote. Basically, it can't really be economically recycled, and it isn't. It's just thrown in heaps where poor folks in developing nations scrabble through the toxic remains. "Useful metals" is a few grams of gold and copper. The rest is plastics (non-recyclables) and FR4 (epoxy filled fiberglass). Fiberglass is also not recyclable. Your plan amounts to little more than greenwashing. [1] https://recyclenation.com/2017/04/where-does-e-waste-end-up/ https://recyclenation.com/2017/04/where-does-e-waste-end-up/ [2] https://www.npr.org/2010/12/21/132204954/after-dump-what-happens-to-electronic-waste https://www.npr.org/2010/12/21/132204954/after-dump-what-hap...
- vesinisa 6y ago
  What is with this Bitcoin & infinite renewables fantasy? You want to compare Bitcoin to resource use of paper money, and then claim Bitcoin's electricity use is anyway irrelevant since humanity could theoretically harvest almost infinite energy from sun (someone just needs to build and maintain the infrastructure.) Meanwhile in reality, Bitcoin's security and value is actually backed by the very scarcity of electricity (computing power) you want to deny, and almost all Bitcoin is mined with the dirtiest, cheapest and most climate unfriendly energy available: Chinese coal.
haswell 6y ago
While I agree with the general sentiment that Bitcoin's energy consumption is a huge problem, I have a problem with these as arguments in isolation. Most would not claim that a Visa transaction and a Bitcoin payment are close to equivalent (the article you linked even acknowledges this). Mining gold is a more interesting comparison, but even though I can go start mining Bitcoin right now, I can't go start mining gold. The article provides a more thoughtful exploration that gets into some of the nuance and makes a stronger case against mining. I mention this because someone reading your comment might be tempted to discard it outright because "those comparisons make no sense". To those people: read the article.

anyfoo 6y ago

Every time I read an argument like that, I wonder whether the author actually looked into how cryptocurrencies work. They have burning of resources built in. Proof of work, their primary mechanism so far, is literally: Waste energy on meaningless computations, until you hit a "lucky" one, with all previous computations having no inherent value themselves. Physical currencies don't have this inefficiency built into their core. In fact, unlike cryptocurrencies, it's in everyone's best interest to make the currency's operation as efficient as possible.

swader999 6y ago
The usd is backed by the U.S. Military, not exactly a net zero proposition.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Nope, the U.S. is backed by the U.S. military, the currency is a freeloader. Whether the currency was bits of string, fiat dollars or Bitcoin, the U.S. military would be the exact same size. Because the military doesn't run around like a body guard for dollar bills, it furthers America's sovereign interests wherever those happen to be located.
  - swader999 6y ago
    Tell that to Libya.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      What should I tell them exactly? That the size of the US Army will be exactly the same no matter what currency America uses? I think they already know that.
- anyfoo 6y ago
  So if the world switched to 100% bitcoin, the militaries of the world would cease to exist?