Moving away from cryptocurrency production will help save the planet

Political analyst Dmitry Nekrasov generally doubted the practical benefits of bitcoins and cryptocurrencies. Moreover, he proved in his publication that their "extraction" causes direct harm to the environment:

“I read here about the XPRIZE Carbon Removal Mask program in which he promises to pay a prize of $ 100 million to the one who offers the best solution capable of removing 1000 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere per year with the prospect of further increasing this figure to millions of tons per year.

And thought I have a pretty simple solution.

Researchers from Cambridge calculated that in 2020, it took more than 120 terawatt hours of electricity to mine and provide transactions only in bitcoin. (There are other calculations, as much as 290 TWh. But let's take a minimum as a base).

One way or another, so far at least 60% of the world's electricity is produced on fossil fuels. Per megawatt hour of electricity produced at TPPs, 0.3+ tons of CO2 emissions account for (much less in the EU, more in Russia and China, but ¾ of mining falls on China with its most dirty coal energy). Through simple calculations, I found out that Bitcoin alone is responsible for the emission of at least 36 million tons of CO2 per year. And this figure is constantly growing.

The decision how to stop all this is elementary. It is enough to criminalize the fact of owning cryptocurrencies in just two countries (the United States and China) and this whole pyramid, at least, will radically reduce electricity consumption.

I don’t know if it’s worth writing about the 36 million tonnes that can be easily cut per year or not. It is not known what is more of a priority for him. He seems to have invested $ 1.5 billion in bitcoin, and only $ 100 million in the fight against emissions.

But seriously: the world average price per kWh of $ 0.125 for the end user, which gives the cost of electricity consumed by the Bitcoin ecosystem in the order of $ 16 billion per year.

Another example: if a coal-fired power plant is equipped with a CO2 capture and storage system, each tonne not emitted will cost about $ 100. The most expensive solutions actually applied to reduce CO2 emissions cost up to $ 300 per tonne. In total, in the world, various eco-friendly measures capture (prevent emission) much more than 36 million tons, I think even the most expensive solutions are much more. Here's another 3.6 to 10.8 billion a year that make businesses spend, while the same effect could be achieved by simply banning one bitcoin.

Well, or it would be possible to spend these 10 +16 billion on aid to the same Africa, thereby increasing it by 1.5 times. And all the starving children in Africa could be fed with this money several times.

I do not call for anything and I do not like prohibitions myself, but I am really surprised by two things:

1. The legislation of many countries contains norms that prevent the wasteful use of resources. If you do not cultivate agricultural land, I can withdraw them from you. If you burn more electricity or water in your house than the established limits, then each additional unit costs you more and more (in Cyprus, up to 10 times the difference in price can be between the cheapest water with electricity within the first limit and the most expensive outside the maximum) ... The townsfolk usually have a negative attitude towards any non-production expenses, be it the military, on the bureaucracy, or um ... on the palaces of the rulers.

And here, in front of everyone, in a completely obvious way, more than 20 billion dollars a year are literally burned on an absolutely meaningless thing that does not bring any real usefulness to society. And everyone is happy and touched by the new world and its prospects.

Yes, by the way. Very often they like to scold various oligarchs and sheikhs for transferring resources to luxury, which can be distributed to hungry children. So, the global yacht market in 2019 is $ 6.5 billion. The world market for new cars of luxury brands is $ 11 billion. But yachts and cars still bring some benefit. They carry someone, even if it is irrationally expensive. And the Bitcoin ecosystem, without creating any utility, annually destroys much more than the yachts + cars consumed by the moneybags around the world.

2. Somehow magically, representatives of progressive humanity often coexist in one head both the struggle for the environment, against global warming and emissions, and the love of cryptocurrencies as something progressive.

And God bless him even with media persons like Musk. The inconsistency of many decisions of such people is often due to external circumstances of the need to play a role.

But let's imagine a modern man in the street who is so worried about the environment that he drives an electric car, uses only eco-packages, and even in his choice of food is guided by its emission footprint (I have met such people). But at the same time, it also progressively mines / buys cryptocurrencies. And if he objectively needs a package or to go somewhere, but, for example, an electric car only reduces, but does not eliminate, emissions for the trip. Then there is no need to mine bitcoin, and you can completely abandon it if you are so eco-responsible..."