5 ms·

Bitcoin worse for the climate than beef, say economists

23 points by samizdis 4y ago

IXxXI 4y ago
There have been many studies over the years done on bitcoin's impact on the environment. Everything published about bitcoin's alleged threat to the planet, take into account none of them.
greyface- 4y ago
Discussion yesterday on the same study: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33023115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33023115
CH1jZci6jV 4y ago
Why would I get my climate opinions from an economist? I prefer getting my opinions from politicians.
TekMol 4y ago
Could Bitcoin miners be built into solar roofs? No matter how big of a battery you put under a solar roof, there will always be some times when the sun shines while the battery is already full. Then a Bitcoin miner could use the free energy.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  From what I understand lots of mining operations are in places with cheap wind or hydro power anyway. But obviously that isn’t some iron law.
- barbazoo 4y ago
  Solar power where I am gets used to charge batteries true but excess goes into the grid where it can be used for better things than mining coinz.
ravenstine 4y ago
Beef isn't bad for the climate any more than the cattle that were present before humankind showed up to invent livestock. Cattle eats plants that largely obtain their carbon from the atmosphere. They emit CO2 and methane, the latter of which degrades after ~12 years forming CO2, meaning cattle has and always been a part of the atmospheric carbon cycle. The only aspect of livestock that can be bad for the climate is the fossil fuels used in the transportation of live animals and slaughtered animal meat. Yeah, no shit is using fossil fuels, which unleashes carbon from earth's crust, is worse for the environment than beef. Of course that's not really something the author of this article from The Register is even considering. Even the paper seems to treat all CO2 emissions as identically damaging to the climate, which is counterscientific.
- neuralRiot 4y ago
  > Beef isn't bad for the climate any more than the cattle that were present before humankind showed up to invent livestock. That is without taking in account that there are 1 billion cows around the world today, eating 10x the necessary soy/ corn, drinking water, pissing and shitting a soup of antibiotics and harmful bacteria. All this with what purpose?
- barbazoo 4y ago
  > cattle has and always been a part of the atmospheric carbon cycle Could that be ignoring the the sheer number of cattle used in industrial beef production? https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-population-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-pop...
  - cassianoleal 4y ago
    Assuming GP is correct, why would the number of cattle make much of a difference? If the carbon emitted by them was previously removed from the same atmosphere that's receiving them, isn't this a well balanced system where no new carbon reaches the atmosphere?
    - glutamate 4y ago

23 points by samizdis 4y ago

There have been many studies over the years done on bitcoin's impact on the environment. Everything published about bitcoin's alleged threat to the planet, take into account none of them.

greyface- 4y ago

Discussion yesterday on the same study: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33023115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33023115

CH1jZci6jV 4y ago

Why would I get my climate opinions from an economist? I prefer getting my opinions from politicians.

TekMol 4y ago

Could Bitcoin miners be built into solar roofs? No matter how big of a battery you put under a solar roof, there will always be some times when the sun shines while the battery is already full. Then a Bitcoin miner could use the free energy.

ch4s3 4y ago
From what I understand lots of mining operations are in places with cheap wind or hydro power anyway. But obviously that isn’t some iron law.
barbazoo 4y ago
Solar power where I am gets used to charge batteries true but excess goes into the grid where it can be used for better things than mining coinz.

ravenstine 4y ago

Beef isn't bad for the climate any more than the cattle that were present before humankind showed up to invent livestock. Cattle eats plants that largely obtain their carbon from the atmosphere. They emit CO2 and methane, the latter of which degrades after ~12 years forming CO2, meaning cattle has and always been a part of the atmospheric carbon cycle. The only aspect of livestock that can be bad for the climate is the fossil fuels used in the transportation of live animals and slaughtered animal meat. Yeah, no shit is using fossil fuels, which unleashes carbon from earth's crust, is worse for the environment than beef. Of course that's not really something the author of this article from The Register is even considering. Even the paper seems to treat all CO2 emissions as identically damaging to the climate, which is counterscientific.

neuralRiot 4y ago
> Beef isn't bad for the climate any more than the cattle that were present before humankind showed up to invent livestock. That is without taking in account that there are 1 billion cows around the world today, eating 10x the necessary soy/ corn, drinking water, pissing and shitting a soup of antibiotics and harmful bacteria. All this with what purpose?
barbazoo 4y ago
> cattle has and always been a part of the atmospheric carbon cycle Could that be ignoring the the sheer number of cattle used in industrial beef production? https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-population-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-pop...
- cassianoleal 4y ago
  Assuming GP is correct, why would the number of cattle make much of a difference? If the carbon emitted by them was previously removed from the same atmosphere that's receiving them, isn't this a well balanced system where no new carbon reaches the atmosphere?
  - glutamate 4y ago