3 ms·

I was a bit disappointed in the article given the headline. The analytical methodology used here is a bit odd to me, and there was no explanation as to why this

I was a bit disappointed in the article given the headline. The analytical methodology used here is a bit odd to me, and there was no explanation as to why this methodology was used. I still don’t know how much incremental CO2 is emitted from buying a Bitcoin or an iPhone after reading it. All I see is a weird CO2 divided by market cap calculation... Does anyone else have good data on the incremental CO2 emissions from either of these?

maxerickson 5y ago
For bitcoin you'd probably not be able to really determine it. One component would be reasonably straightforward, take the fee paid for the transaction and divide it by the block reward it appears in, it's arguably directly responsible for that percentage of the emissions related to that block. The other potential component would be any impact on the value of bitcoin due to the transaction. It's likely close enough to zero most of the time, but when it isn't zero it's gonna be a doozy.
incrudible 5y ago
> Does anyone else have good data on the incremental CO2 emissions from either of these? Virtually none. Bitcoins get mined with or without transactions, as long as the expected block reward exceeds operating costs, work will be performed. The amount of transactions is fixed (or rather capped), transaction fees are a fraction of block rewards. By performing a transaction, you are bidding up the price for a transaction. Therefore, in aggregate, you are helping keep those miners in the game that are just about to become unprofitable.