Its all new so the carbon footprint of these is likley to go down as they find new ways to work with these. I've done traditional art for over a decade. I've so

Its all new so the carbon footprint of these is likley to go down as they find new ways to work with these. I've done traditional art for over a decade. I've sold a lot but it's not enough to live on nor is it easy to find buyers especially in areas like where I live. I'm guessing you've never heard the term starving artist. Most traditional artists aren't able to sell their work for much or at all no matter how good it is. In areas like mine, no one can afford it. Could sell it online but it's costly to ship and depending on the distance and considering the packing material, and waste created making it, not much greener than making an nft, if it is at all. A lot of people make digital art that isn't an nft and sell it online. It's easily stolen and never paid for or the amount paid is a few cents for each download.You either need to be good at selling and advertising or pay a lot to have it done. Most the NFTs I find are extremely different from traditional art. People are buying and selling crypto currencies regardless of nfts, artists just found a way to use it that profits them. If you consider someone could make a living selling these, it means they probably won't need to drive to work daily saving fuel there so it may balance out to the same as driving to a job while doing art as a hobby or side job. This opened up possibilities of remote work for more than just artist since people are needed to run it all too. In an area like where I live, you have 100 mile round trip to work each day. In fuel alone that's a decent carbon footprint. Now add the fact those kinds of miles mean more oil and tires are needed. I feel like the amount of remote work these opened up probably makes up for the waste they produce. There's a lot there to consider before I'd say it does or doesn't but the average NFT has a carbon footprint of about 90 kilograms whole a 32 mile drive to work is 3200 a year (about 9 kilograms a day). An artist wouldn't need to make or sell one each day. Some only need to sell a few in one year maybe just one to no longer need a daily commute. Since that only considering 32 miles and here the daily drive it 3X that, it seems like a good way to cut a carbon footprint too. Opensea is starting to use polygon for nfts, a more eco-friendly option, so they are trying to cut that area back to.From the look of it, another nft marketplace may have found a way to make and sell these with a lot less of an impact. Nfts are a small percent to blame for emissions. Buying anything at all has a carbon footprint. It had to get there somehow right. Why destroy the the planet to buy clothes that serve no real function other than looking nice? Why destroy the planet to buy anything that isn't vital to survival? It's odd how people call it destroying the planet when it's something they don't enjoy but don't look at their own carbon footprint for things they enjoy. I've cut my carbon footprint in so many ways for so long that if I sold a few nfts it wouldn't come close to what I cut. The lack of new clothes alone would likley make up for it x1000 alone. If I sold any it would be for the same reason I'd need to drive 100 miles a day. People participate to make money where it's being made like they always have. It's a source of income to pay for the things we need to survive and its not really much different than other more traditional jobs other than its more accessible for those if us in remote areas with few options for work.