5 ms·

Quote from the article: > “I feel very proud, you know, that I'll be able to look back and say I've had a role to play in removing a megaton of carbon from the

Quote from the article: > “I feel very proud, you know, that I'll be able to look back and say I've had a role to play in removing a megaton of carbon from the atmosphere every week." -- Edgington There's a very important difference in not emitting carbon into the atmosphere and actively removing carbon from the atmosphere. Both are critically necessary and complementary, but I don't see how Edgington thinks that switching off PoW suddenly makes Ethereum carbon-negative.

Slartie 4y ago
Especially since the carbon emissions of Ethereum were a product of Ethereum's existence in the first place, hence an entirely self-made problem, produced by the very people developing and pushing the platform. It's a lot like someone being an active part of a group of gangsters taking hostages, then turning around and helping the police freeing them, only to then brag about how proud he/she is of having a role in freeing those poor innocent people.
- xtracto 4y ago
  I love Ethereum and am a strong believer in Blockchain technology, but everytime I hear the "Ethereum PoS is a win for the environment" reminds me of the Simpons episode when Bart says something like: "I'm going to smoke and then quit smoking" to what Homer replies congratulating him because quitting smoking is one of the most difficult things to do... It is very misleading, and naive.
  - cphoover 4y ago
    Lol hillarious
jqpabc123 4y ago
He's not saying it is "carbon-negative" --- he's saying it is more efficient and avoids a megaton of carbon that would otherwise have been released.
- franky47 4y ago
  In this case "removing" is not the right term, but "avoid emitting". No carbon will be removed in any case, be it PoW or PoS.
  - danuker 4y ago
    You are correct. Reminds me of "negative GDP growth", one of the most roundabout ways to say "wealth creation slowdown".
hwillis 4y ago
> There's a very important difference in not emitting carbon into the atmosphere and actively removing carbon from the atmosphere. The phrase "removing a megaton of carbon from the atmosphere every week" is globally syntactically ambiguous. It can be read as "removing [a megaton of carbon from the atmosphere] every week" or as "removing [a megaton of carbon from the atmosphere every week]". The second interpretation means removing a source. Both interpretations are roughly equally valid, although "eliminating" would sound better. "eliminating the emission of a ton of CO2 every week" is a similarly ambiguous phrase which can be interpreted as [the emission of a ton of CO2 every week] or [the emission of a ton of CO2], every week.
- franky47 4y ago
  Punctuation is key, as your second example emphasises. In this case, a better wording would have been: "removing the source of a megaton a week of carbon emissions".
hoosieree 4y ago
"We are ruining the environment more slowly." er, I mean... "We are saving the environment!"
- franky47 4y ago
  If the main observation curve doesn't go the way you want, check its derivative. "The wall is very close" "We're going too fast, shouldn't we brake?" "Oh at least, we're not accelerating, look, constant speed, everything is fine!"
ohgodplsno 4y ago
The Ethereum's foundation next scam could be to sell carbon credits, promising not to switch back to PoW for the next 5 years, genius.

Slartie 4y ago

Especially since the carbon emissions of Ethereum were a product of Ethereum's existence in the first place, hence an entirely self-made problem, produced by the very people developing and pushing the platform. It's a lot like someone being an active part of a group of gangsters taking hostages, then turning around and helping the police freeing them, only to then brag about how proud he/she is of having a role in freeing those poor innocent people.

xtracto 4y ago
I love Ethereum and am a strong believer in Blockchain technology, but everytime I hear the "Ethereum PoS is a win for the environment" reminds me of the Simpons episode when Bart says something like: "I'm going to smoke and then quit smoking" to what Homer replies congratulating him because quitting smoking is one of the most difficult things to do... It is very misleading, and naive.
- cphoover 4y ago
  Lol hillarious

jqpabc123 4y ago

He's not saying it is "carbon-negative" --- he's saying it is more efficient and avoids a megaton of carbon that would otherwise have been released.

franky47 4y ago
In this case "removing" is not the right term, but "avoid emitting". No carbon will be removed in any case, be it PoW or PoS.
- danuker 4y ago
  You are correct. Reminds me of "negative GDP growth", one of the most roundabout ways to say "wealth creation slowdown".

hwillis 4y ago

> There's a very important difference in not emitting carbon into the atmosphere and actively removing carbon from the atmosphere. The phrase "removing a megaton of carbon from the atmosphere every week" is globally syntactically ambiguous. It can be read as "removing [a megaton of carbon from the atmosphere] every week" or as "removing [a megaton of carbon from the atmosphere every week]". The second interpretation means removing a source. Both interpretations are roughly equally valid, although "eliminating" would sound better. "eliminating the emission of a ton of CO2 every week" is a similarly ambiguous phrase which can be interpreted as [the emission of a ton of CO2 every week] or [the emission of a ton of CO2], every week.

franky47 4y ago
Punctuation is key, as your second example emphasises. In this case, a better wording would have been: "removing the source of a megaton a week of carbon emissions".

hoosieree 4y ago

"We are ruining the environment more slowly." er, I mean... "We are saving the environment!"

franky47 4y ago
If the main observation curve doesn't go the way you want, check its derivative. "The wall is very close" "We're going too fast, shouldn't we brake?" "Oh at least, we're not accelerating, look, constant speed, everything is fine!"

ohgodplsno 4y ago

The Ethereum's foundation next scam could be to sell carbon credits, promising not to switch back to PoW for the next 5 years, genius.