4 ms·

The environmental harm of a single ethereum transaction is very low. Lower than a fundraising dinner. Please take your nitpicking elsewhere. They're literally

by eloff 6y ago

The environmental harm of a single ethereum transaction is very low. Lower than a fundraising dinner. Please take your nitpicking elsewhere. They're literally aiming at saving thousands of lives and the comments are all focused on how bad NFTs are. Give me a break, talk about missing the point.

endisneigh 6y ago
> The environmental harm of a single ethereum transaction is very low. Lower than a fundraising dinner. Please take your nitpicking elsewhere. Source? I'm curious to see exactly how the environmental harm of a fundraising dinner is quantified. edit: When I google "ethereum transaction energy cost" the Google featured snippet says 50kwH for a single transaction. I find it hard to believe that it would take 50kWH to cook a single dinner. If you're referring to multiple dinners, then you would have to subtract the cost to eat in general as eating is a human necessity - hence me asking your source since I'm genuinely curious.
- sp332 6y ago
  With the NFT minting, several bids, sale, and transfer of ownership, it's an average of 340 kWh for a successful NFT, according to https://memoakten.medium.com/the-unreasonable-ecological-cost-of-cryptoart-2221d3eb2053 https://memoakten.medium.com/the-unreasonable-ecological-cos... which has sources and methodology etc. That seems pretty high even for a fundraising dinner, and at least that includes food.
- eloff 6y ago
  Think about all the energy costs involved in everyone driving to the dinner, the air conditioning or heating for the venue, etc. It would depend on the number of guests which is more costly to the environment. For a dinner where you aim to raise 2.5 million, I think the dinner is going to have a bigger impact. But again, I want to reiterate that focusing on the environmental impact here is totally missing the point. It's like saying the outside of the hospital is painted a jarring color.
  - endisneigh 6y ago
    this is a really disingenuous comparison. again you'd have to subtract the costs that would've already been incurred anyway. would someone invited to a fundraiser dinner not eat otherwise? or drive? or have AC? also, given that it's already very easy to send money to any non-profit talking about the potentially unnecessary environment costs doesn't seem unreasonable. the only reason people bring it up is because there's an alternative that doesn't incur the same costs but achieve the same thing.
    - eloff 6y ago
      > this is a really disingenuous comparison. Neither of us put up numbers, but I didn't call you disingenuous. I stand by what I said until I see math to the contrary.
      - endisneigh 6y ago
        You're the one who made the claim to begin with - so there's nothing to stand on, it's just a baseless claim since you didn't really provide any information on how much energy is required for a "fundraiser dinner" to begin with that wouldn't have been used anyway.
        eloff 6y ago
        And you followed with a baseless rebuttal. Don't waste your breath.
slg 6y ago
>The environmental harm of a single ethereum transaction is very low. "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible" ~ Stanisław Jerzy Lec No transaction individually harms the environment. The collection of all transactions harms the environment. This one transaction is part of that collection and it has potential to help attract people to the platform which will encourage more transactions in the future.
rpearl 6y ago
Because doing this as an NFT is utterly nonsensical. The NFT is involved for absolutely no reason. The only results of involving an NFT are (1) legitimizing a ridiculous scam and (2) causing extra environmental damage alongside the donation. Just donate the money, using a fraction of the carbon cost, and if you want to generate hype, do a match. What a waste of time and energy.
- eloff 6y ago
  They clearly did it to capitalize on the hype around NFTs and draw attention to the fund raising event. Given we're talking about it, that looks successful, not nonsensical. Welcome to the world of marketing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- fighterpilot 6y ago
  > Because doing this as an NFT is utterly nonsensical. The NFT is involved for absolutely no reason. It's not nonsensical from the perspective of their mission if it increases the amount of money that they're able to raise. > What a waste of time and energy. They're emitting ~90 kilograms of CO2 to save 2000 lives, which is a good trade-off if they wouldn't have been able to raise that much through traditional channels.
dorkwood 6y ago
Throwing an empty can into the river has a miniscule effect on the environment. You do more damage when you ride the bus to work.

by eloff 6y ago

endisneigh 6y ago

> The environmental harm of a single ethereum transaction is very low. Lower than a fundraising dinner. Please take your nitpicking elsewhere. Source? I'm curious to see exactly how the environmental harm of a fundraising dinner is quantified. edit: When I google "ethereum transaction energy cost" the Google featured snippet says 50kwH for a single transaction. I find it hard to believe that it would take 50kWH to cook a single dinner. If you're referring to multiple dinners, then you would have to subtract the cost to eat in general as eating is a human necessity - hence me asking your source since I'm genuinely curious.

sp332 6y ago
With the NFT minting, several bids, sale, and transfer of ownership, it's an average of 340 kWh for a successful NFT, according to https://memoakten.medium.com/the-unreasonable-ecological-cost-of-cryptoart-2221d3eb2053 https://memoakten.medium.com/the-unreasonable-ecological-cos... which has sources and methodology etc. That seems pretty high even for a fundraising dinner, and at least that includes food.
eloff 6y ago
Think about all the energy costs involved in everyone driving to the dinner, the air conditioning or heating for the venue, etc. It would depend on the number of guests which is more costly to the environment. For a dinner where you aim to raise 2.5 million, I think the dinner is going to have a bigger impact. But again, I want to reiterate that focusing on the environmental impact here is totally missing the point. It's like saying the outside of the hospital is painted a jarring color.
- endisneigh 6y ago
  this is a really disingenuous comparison. again you'd have to subtract the costs that would've already been incurred anyway. would someone invited to a fundraiser dinner not eat otherwise? or drive? or have AC? also, given that it's already very easy to send money to any non-profit talking about the potentially unnecessary environment costs doesn't seem unreasonable. the only reason people bring it up is because there's an alternative that doesn't incur the same costs but achieve the same thing.
  - eloff 6y ago
    > this is a really disingenuous comparison. Neither of us put up numbers, but I didn't call you disingenuous. I stand by what I said until I see math to the contrary.
    - endisneigh 6y ago
      You're the one who made the claim to begin with - so there's nothing to stand on, it's just a baseless claim since you didn't really provide any information on how much energy is required for a "fundraiser dinner" to begin with that wouldn't have been used anyway.
      - eloff 6y ago
        And you followed with a baseless rebuttal. Don't waste your breath.

slg 6y ago

>The environmental harm of a single ethereum transaction is very low. "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible" ~ Stanisław Jerzy Lec No transaction individually harms the environment. The collection of all transactions harms the environment. This one transaction is part of that collection and it has potential to help attract people to the platform which will encourage more transactions in the future.

rpearl 6y ago

Because doing this as an NFT is utterly nonsensical. The NFT is involved for absolutely no reason. The only results of involving an NFT are (1) legitimizing a ridiculous scam and (2) causing extra environmental damage alongside the donation. Just donate the money, using a fraction of the carbon cost, and if you want to generate hype, do a match. What a waste of time and energy.

eloff 6y ago
They clearly did it to capitalize on the hype around NFTs and draw attention to the fund raising event. Given we're talking about it, that looks successful, not nonsensical. Welcome to the world of marketing.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fighterpilot 6y ago
> Because doing this as an NFT is utterly nonsensical. The NFT is involved for absolutely no reason. It's not nonsensical from the perspective of their mission if it increases the amount of money that they're able to raise. > What a waste of time and energy. They're emitting ~90 kilograms of CO2 to save 2000 lives, which is a good trade-off if they wouldn't have been able to raise that much through traditional channels.

dorkwood 6y ago

Throwing an empty can into the river has a miniscule effect on the environment. You do more damage when you ride the bus to work.