16 ms·

I’m paying to subsidise the fossil fuel industry, I care more about that, I’m just not outages about this.

LurkingPenguin 5y ago
You do realize that energy being used to mine crypto is generated in good part by those fossil fuels you care about, right? https://www.govtech.com/news/bitcoin-mining-in-upstate-new-york-is-environmental-concern https://www.govtech.com/news/bitcoin-mining-in-upstate-new-y...
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  Apparently it's around 56% renewables-generated electricity. https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2021/07/06/bitcoin-mining-uses-a-higher-mix-of-sustainable-energy-than-any-major-country-or-industry/?sh=31b49e4d4cc9 https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2021/07/06/bi...
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    Your link is press-release like article. It cites a self-reporting based survey published by the Bitcoin Mining Council, a "voluntary global forum of Bitcoin mining companies and other companies in the Bitcoin industry", that goes so far as to claim Bitcoin is "one of the most sustainable industries globally". This hardly seems like an objective, reputable source whose claims should be accepted at face value.
    - fleddr 5y ago
      The very point of that council, which is brand new, is to give transparency and insight into the energy mix used to mine Bitcoin. You should never take any claim at face value, but it's quite lazy to dismiss their data without backing it up.
      - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
        > The very point of that council, which is brand new, is to give transparency and insight into the energy mix used to mine Bitcoin. No, it isn't. Per the website: > The mandate of the Bitcoin Mining Council is to promote transparency, share best practices, and educate the public on the benefits of Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining. So group that says it exists to promote Bitcoin mining and educate the public on the supposed benefits of Bitcoin mining publishes a study claiming that Bitcoin mining is super sustainable at a time when one of the biggest criticisms of Bitcoin is its energy use. Shocking! > You should never take any claim at face value, but it's quite lazy to dismiss their data without backing it up. It's the other way around. Groups making claims are responsible for backing them up, and there's arguably a higher standard for special interest groups who are conflicted and make claims that just happen to support their interests. Claims like Bitcoin is "one of the most sustainable industries globally" and "the network remains as strong as ever, it simply shrugs off adversity and moves forward". Based on the press release and YouTube slides, this survey relied on self-reported data from parties who volunteered to answer 3 questions, with no independent verification that any of them responded accurately or truthfully. The responses (supposedly) cover (only) "32 percent of the current global Bitcoin network".
        fleddr 5y ago
        You already made up your mind and reason from bad faith. You can't even quote them correctly. The group doesn't exist to promote Bitcoin mining as if to encourage more companies to start mining. The group is there to explain why Bitcoin uses so much energy, encourages miners to give insights into this (which is sorely lacking, everybody is largely guessing right now) and shares best practices between miners to go for sustainable energy, and even better: stranded surplus sustainable energy, such as flaring. Nowhere do their reports say they are "super sustainable", it's you fabricating these lazy labels. Whilst mainstream media focuses on some rogue abandoned coal factory mining Bitcoin, in reality the conversion towards renewables for Bitcoin mining is moving ahead at a spectacular pace.
        LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  - AlexandrB 5y ago
    Luckily electricity is non-fungible so that the green electricity used by bitcoin does not create increased demand for fossil-fuel generated electricity elsewhere.
    - keymone 5y ago
      nope, electricity is absolutely fungible. not only in some places consuming excess renewable energy help to stabilize the grid, it also helps producers financially and drives up the demand. bitcoin literally pushes for increased renewable energy production, which helped fighting climate change more than any political bickering did in the past half a century.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    Even if it's 56%, that's still 44% non-renewable sources for something that uses about as much electricity as the Netherlands.
buckie 5y ago
Welcome to climate change in the 21st century, where we'll be outraged/distracted by everything but how ~100 companies are responsible for 70% of global emissions[1]. Today we’ll be talking about evil terrorism enabling cryptocurrencies. Tomorrow we’ll be talking about individual choice and SUVs. [1]:https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...
- The_Beta 5y ago
  I keep seeing this argument that companies are responsible for pollution. While yes it's true, why do you think those companies are polluting? It's not because they get up in the morning and say "better go pollute a bit more today!" They are creating products/services for people. So if it bothers you that much then stop using those products/services. Not possible? Then vote to change laws. Not possible? Revolution I get that putting the onus on consumers isn't going to fix the problem, but pointing to a factory that pollutes because you buy their products and want their product cheaply is equally inane
  - what_is_orcas 5y ago
    > It's not because they get up in the morning and say "better go pollute a bit more today!" Of course not, but they do actively make decisions based on profit over sustainability. > So if it bothers you that much then stop using those products/services. Not possible? Then vote to change laws. Not possible? Revolution One voter voting on an issue doesn't change anything. These kinds of arguments must be made to convince others to vote with you on the issue. The same could be said of a revolution: a one person revolt doesn't go anywhere, we need more folks to embrace the revolution. There's also been a concerted effort by corporations over the past few decades to shift blame from corporations & manufacturers responsible for pollution onto the consumers, which makes arguments like these necessary (because otherwise the only argument on the market is that we consumers are just buying plastics to spite the environment, to be hyperbolic about it).
    - 5y ago
AlexandrB 5y ago
But to be fair fossil fuels are used to produce the food you eat, the computer you're typing on, and probably the electricity/gas you use to keep yourself cold/warm. Meanwhile, bitcoin is used to produce... what? A speculative asset some people can invest/gamble on?

You do realize that energy being used to mine crypto is generated in good part by those fossil fuels you care about, right? https://www.govtech.com/news/bitcoin-mining-in-upstate-new-york-is-environmental-concern https://www.govtech.com/news/bitcoin-mining-in-upstate-new-y...

BLKNSLVR 5y ago
Apparently it's around 56% renewables-generated electricity. https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2021/07/06/bitcoin-mining-uses-a-higher-mix-of-sustainable-energy-than-any-major-country-or-industry/?sh=31b49e4d4cc9 https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2021/07/06/bi...
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  Your link is press-release like article. It cites a self-reporting based survey published by the Bitcoin Mining Council, a "voluntary global forum of Bitcoin mining companies and other companies in the Bitcoin industry", that goes so far as to claim Bitcoin is "one of the most sustainable industries globally". This hardly seems like an objective, reputable source whose claims should be accepted at face value.
  - fleddr 5y ago
    The very point of that council, which is brand new, is to give transparency and insight into the energy mix used to mine Bitcoin. You should never take any claim at face value, but it's quite lazy to dismiss their data without backing it up.
    - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
      > The very point of that council, which is brand new, is to give transparency and insight into the energy mix used to mine Bitcoin. No, it isn't. Per the website: > The mandate of the Bitcoin Mining Council is to promote transparency, share best practices, and educate the public on the benefits of Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining. So group that says it exists to promote Bitcoin mining and educate the public on the supposed benefits of Bitcoin mining publishes a study claiming that Bitcoin mining is super sustainable at a time when one of the biggest criticisms of Bitcoin is its energy use. Shocking! > You should never take any claim at face value, but it's quite lazy to dismiss their data without backing it up. It's the other way around. Groups making claims are responsible for backing them up, and there's arguably a higher standard for special interest groups who are conflicted and make claims that just happen to support their interests. Claims like Bitcoin is "one of the most sustainable industries globally" and "the network remains as strong as ever, it simply shrugs off adversity and moves forward". Based on the press release and YouTube slides, this survey relied on self-reported data from parties who volunteered to answer 3 questions, with no independent verification that any of them responded accurately or truthfully. The responses (supposedly) cover (only) "32 percent of the current global Bitcoin network".
      - fleddr 5y ago
        You already made up your mind and reason from bad faith. You can't even quote them correctly. The group doesn't exist to promote Bitcoin mining as if to encourage more companies to start mining. The group is there to explain why Bitcoin uses so much energy, encourages miners to give insights into this (which is sorely lacking, everybody is largely guessing right now) and shares best practices between miners to go for sustainable energy, and even better: stranded surplus sustainable energy, such as flaring. Nowhere do their reports say they are "super sustainable", it's you fabricating these lazy labels. Whilst mainstream media focuses on some rogue abandoned coal factory mining Bitcoin, in reality the conversion towards renewables for Bitcoin mining is moving ahead at a spectacular pace.
        LurkingPenguin 5y ago
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  Luckily electricity is non-fungible so that the green electricity used by bitcoin does not create increased demand for fossil-fuel generated electricity elsewhere.
  - keymone 5y ago
    nope, electricity is absolutely fungible. not only in some places consuming excess renewable energy help to stabilize the grid, it also helps producers financially and drives up the demand. bitcoin literally pushes for increased renewable energy production, which helped fighting climate change more than any political bickering did in the past half a century.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  Even if it's 56%, that's still 44% non-renewable sources for something that uses about as much electricity as the Netherlands.

buckie 5y ago

Welcome to climate change in the 21st century, where we'll be outraged/distracted by everything but how ~100 companies are responsible for 70% of global emissions[1]. Today we’ll be talking about evil terrorism enabling cryptocurrencies. Tomorrow we’ll be talking about individual choice and SUVs. [1]:https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

The_Beta 5y ago
I keep seeing this argument that companies are responsible for pollution. While yes it's true, why do you think those companies are polluting? It's not because they get up in the morning and say "better go pollute a bit more today!" They are creating products/services for people. So if it bothers you that much then stop using those products/services. Not possible? Then vote to change laws. Not possible? Revolution I get that putting the onus on consumers isn't going to fix the problem, but pointing to a factory that pollutes because you buy their products and want their product cheaply is equally inane
- what_is_orcas 5y ago
  > It's not because they get up in the morning and say "better go pollute a bit more today!" Of course not, but they do actively make decisions based on profit over sustainability. > So if it bothers you that much then stop using those products/services. Not possible? Then vote to change laws. Not possible? Revolution One voter voting on an issue doesn't change anything. These kinds of arguments must be made to convince others to vote with you on the issue. The same could be said of a revolution: a one person revolt doesn't go anywhere, we need more folks to embrace the revolution. There's also been a concerted effort by corporations over the past few decades to shift blame from corporations & manufacturers responsible for pollution onto the consumers, which makes arguments like these necessary (because otherwise the only argument on the market is that we consumers are just buying plastics to spite the environment, to be hyperbolic about it).
  - 5y ago

AlexandrB 5y ago

But to be fair fossil fuels are used to produce the food you eat, the computer you're typing on, and probably the electricity/gas you use to keep yourself cold/warm. Meanwhile, bitcoin is used to produce... what? A speculative asset some people can invest/gamble on?