CO

alsoilikebeer

True. Bitcoin will, as long as it is Proof-of-Work, look for the cheapest energy, without regard for the envirement. BTC uses as much energy as Poland. Every day, each day. 175 TWh yearly. Visa, Mastercard combined use less than 1% of that. The combined tradfi CO2 output is estimated to be around 30% of BTC. As long as cheap energy is bad for the enviroment so will BTC be. I hope for cleaner and cheaper energy.

Correct-Respect2425

Morally relevant part in your argument is just the CO2 footprint and not energy use itself. Renewables don't have such strings attached to their use, they are just buckets in omnipresent entropic gradient in our environment, which is otherwise dissipated by nature anyway. Renewables more often then not tend to be the cheapest option in location-independent consumer market like btc mining. My point is miners generally create good incentives, especially in comparsion with alternatives (state subsidies) and you are probably not appaled by nature wasting energy by wind blowing or unnecessary surfaces being illuminated by the sun..

waggytwo

Yes but manufacturing the components, possibly a lot of them in China, will still release CO2 in the atmosphere…

waggytwo

Mining bitcoins releases CO2 in the atmosphere.. but plants love CO2

georgke

I would argue that this mindless spending on all sorts of crap is the main cause of pollution (in terms of CO2 and waste). If they really cared about the environment they would try to limit this by fixing our money, instead it's the other way around, more and more single use, ultra low quality products that produce staggering amounts of waste.

nameless_pattern

A cars utility is converting gas into CO2.... mmK

Nephilim8

The great thing about this is that a single bitcoin transaction only takes an hour to process (not instant like credit cards), it burns $60 worth of electricity, creates as much CO2 as burning 70 gallons of gasoline, creates a pound of electronic waste. And that's just one transaction. And the bitcoin network can handle upto 600,000 transactions per day - so if every person on earth did one bitcoin transaction, it would take 35 years to process them all. Other than that, it's great!

Unfair-Educator-8369

Some of these comments just proved how so many people don't have a clue about investing or how the market works, please sell everything you got, just get out and buy CO'S, because it's evident you don't how to readjust your investments in stocks and have no clue about cyrpto or how to make money.

Ordinary-Original520

A hermetically sealed tube with a CO2 scrubber*

iwakan

I am celebrating. Every dollar that bitcoin goes down, a life is saved from reduced CO2 emissions from mining.

zac79

Governments don’t care about bitcoin. It doesn’t threaten them one bit, that’s just your anarcho-capitalist fever dream where among other things *you* get to decide when bitcoin is a currency and when it’s an asset according to whatever is most convenient for your sales pitch.  Governments (at least the sane ones) care about wasted energy, economically unproductive CO2 emissions. Financial scams that prey on under informed victims, and financial pathways that only exist to lubricate crime. 

throwawayLouisa

NB: Nobody believes me about Bitcoin $BTC emitting the mass of one (1) additional Cessna airplane in CO₂ per settled payment - over and above that of Nano $XNO. Then they go away and do the math. (Then they go quiet and pensive, and never speak of it again.)

throwawayLouisa

For anyone new to Nano $XNO: Nano $XNO is: • The hardest money **in the world** (it has no monetary inflation, and no monetary inflation is even possible) • Fully 100% distributed (and thus unruggable by any centralized holder) • The fastest money **in the world** to reach immutable irreversible secure finality (Average 355ms) • The lowest fee money **in the world** (no fees at all. Nada. Rien. Zilch) • The easiest to use digital money **in the world** (no "Fee:" field in its wallets' send screens, see?) • The most hyperefficient money **in the world** (using 17.4 million times less energy per settled transaction than Bitcoin $BTC) • The least polluting money **in the world** (generating CO2 per settled transaction with the mass of ONE FEWER Cessna 172 Skyhawk light aircrafts per settled transaction, when compared to Bitcoin $BTC) • The ONLY Fixed Supply Commodity **in the world** (not a Security) • The most spam-resistant currency **in the world** (Read up on its Taac/PoB4QoS and Bounded Block Backlog technology) • Battletested for nine years in its final zero-inflation economic form (**making it the ONLY such surviving actively-developed currency* ***in the world***) Hope that helped.

__Mind_Over_Matter

Don't worry, Europe is too busy fighting for CO2 emissions and importing immigrants from Africa to actually matter. And I'm saying this as an European.

throwawayLouisa

> "You have to think in terms of economy of scale in channel management." No you don't - you just made that up. • You have to think in terms of Buttcoin having only remaining capacity to open channels for a maximum of an additional 3.5 people per second (which in itself would trigger **insane** fees - making it already inaccessible to the masses) • You have to think in terms of the global birthrate of new babies being 4.3 per second • You have to think in terms of Buttcoin $BTC not even being able to keep up with the global birthrate when opening Lightning channels for them > "Users and businesses can batch multiple open channels..." No they can't. You just made that up. What they *can* do is ask ***someone else*** to open a batched channel on their behalf, passing though a custodial stage. "Custodial" doesn't count. The moment you introduce custodians, you trigger the second sentence in the Abstract of Satoshi's White Paper. The moment you introduce Custodians is the moment that you stop, tear it up and throw it away. > "...or keep channels open indefinitely amortizing the costs over thousands or millions of transactions." That's irelevant to it potentially costing thousands or millions to open the channel in the first place - an initial hump that kills adoption. Your argument is invalid. > "A well funded channel doesn't need to be closed and reopened frequently and lightning nodes can rebalance liquidity off-chain by routing payments." Nobody cares dude - see above - your argument is already invalid. There are only 14,329 routable Lightning node operators still remaining worldwide - down from its ~20k peak three years ago. Even previous Lightning enthusiasts are getting out. Fast. > "Who's to say it's even LN?" It's not Lightning - it's nothing. Because for all Lightning's massive list of faults and failures, the root of the problem is **not** in Lightning, but in the unscalability of the L1 - which prevents the world's population from ever onboarding to *any* L2 within their own lifetimes. > "That's a solution today" No it's not - you just entirely made that up. See above. > "but things like Ark and Fediment come to mind" Not to my mind they certainly don't! • Ark is, though not Custodial, nevertheless centralized and dependent on a central coordinator. Therefore it's utter shiite • Ark suffers the same problem as Lightning of being unable to onboard the world's population within their own lifetimes. Therefore it's utter shiite • Fedimint is Custodial. Therefore it's utter shiite • Fedimint suffers the same problem as Lightning of being unable to onboard the world's population within their own lifetimes. Therefore it's utter shiite > "if it's even LN at that point." It's not. Extrapolating the crashing channel trend over the last 2.5 years would leave Lightning **not even existing** as a functional peer to peer network within only another 2.5 years. > "You aren't wrong to suggest that individual users might (no, WILL) struggle to open/close channels to settle transactions made on higher level solutions." That's correct. > "But they won't be the ones doing so." So it's custodial shiite then? Congratulations! - you've just reinvented the banking system! But this time with unregistered unregulated uninspected unaudited uninsured not-a-bank "banks". Wow! Much success! > "If bitcoin succeeds" If. > "there will be whole enterprises that will exist to manage liquidity and implement hubs (etc.) much like today" So this is the absolute disgusting **gutter** to which Bitcoin Maximalism has fallen? A proposed **custodial** finance system! *One literally compared to Visa!* - yet emitting CO₂ WITH THE MASS OF A CESSNA AIRCRAFT for every settled transaction! The failure of Buttcoin $BTC is now total. > "The real value in the network will be for final settlement." There is no such value. Someone has to pay for Buttcoin's as stunning settlement inefficiency. That's always the end-user in the end. That's **you**. Better alternatives exist. 17.4 million times as efficient. Without Bitcoin's inflating monetary supply.

throwawayLouisa

> "Your argument is invalid." Yet you could not quote a single line in it and state why you think it invalid. > "Which crypto has increased in value relative to BTC?" Historical Whataboutism. > "Which crypto is superior" Nano $XNO. > "and why?" • Bitcoin has infinitely more inflation of its monetary supply than Nano • Bitcoin takes 1.3 million times longer (to still reach only 95% probabilistic secure finality) as Nano takes to reach immutable irreversible finality • Bitcoin is 17.4 million times less energy efficient than Nano • Bitcoin emits CO₂ with the mass of one (1) more Cessna 172 aircraft per settled transaction than Nano does • Bitcoin generates the mass of an iPhone more eWaste per settled transaction than Nano • Bitcoin has infinitely higher fees than Nano • Bitcoin needs 50% more fields completed in its wallets in order to send a payment • Bitcoin's extra wallet field has resulted in accidental loss of three million dollars ($3m) for a single payment. That would not have even been possible with Nano • Bitcoin risk of loss from this type of user error discourages mass adoption compared to Nano • Nano doesn't need nor have a fundamentally insecure L2. Bitcoin does • Nano doesn't need nor have a dying L2 with only 14k holders. Bitcoin does • Nano has been battletested for nine years in its final zero-inflation economic form. Bitcoin has had no battletesting **at all** in its final zero-inflation economic form, and will not get any such testing for more than a century • Nano has no tendency to centralize. Bitcoin has a creeping natural tendency towards centralization due to economies of scale > "ETH-check how the market has valued ETH relative to BTC over time." More historical Whataboutism. > "I can’t predict the future..." Correct > "...but I can predict that first mover advantage is called that because it has advantage." So you're presumably saying that fiat and gold have a massive first mover advantage over Bitcoin, and don't expect Bitcoin to be able to overtake that? > "BTC is a decentralized, consensus network." So what. So is Nano. So are (most) other as alts. > "When the billions invested in capital can’t make money, network maintenance fees will rise by consensus." You just entirely made that up. It's pure Hopium fantasy. Even if your claim *were* true, then you're predicting onlythat Bitcoin becomes an investment for only the extremely wealthy 0.1% - leaving a wide open goalmouth for a harder money than Bitcoin to be adopted by the 99.9%.

freedom_fighting321

It offends me that you're trying so hard to make me look/ feel bad for making a joke about the best trader in history! 🤷‍♂️ However, i will wait and see whom actually takes credit, or until it is uncovered, that actually pulled off the single play of the century to make a full decision on what and how i feel about it. Until then, IT'S PROBABLY PELOSI N CO.🤣

Educational-Steak883

Elliot and Wyckoff, do we have a bad new to justify what's happening? the market is being manipulated by the composite operator (CO), forcing people to sell cheap and accumulate more bitcoins. btc market is always being manipulated, you only need to figure out what the CO is doing, they always leave clues.

georgke

Also China has amassed a significant amount of gold over the years. If using gold as collateral, the goldprice would skyrocket, making China the richest country in the world. The EU wants to use CO2 right as collateral which is fucking stupid. Bitcoin honestly makes the most sense at this stage.

Ok-Landscape-1681

With you here. CO is usually on the front line of things like this.

Derrickmb

Why is he not building CO2 scrubbers around the world with this kind of money?

Erowid2S

>That $800,000,000,000 to back the USD doesn’t use any energy though right? No, it does, clearly. But what is a country without a military? Nothing. Unlike bitcoin, the military is actually necessary (unfortunately). > Oh wait. The DOD as an organization is the largest producer of CO2 in the world, and the worst polluter, by far. That’s the energy you need to stand up a fiat currency. Kek. If the DoD is the "largest polluter" it's only because the USA has the strongest military (and thus we also have the strongest currency, the USD). Crypto bros don't understand how reality works it seems. Bitcoin is backed by nothing and uses a lot of energy for no reason -- even though alternatives exist which don't use lots of energy.

Annual_Juggernaut_47

lol. That $800,000,000,000 to back the USD doesn’t use any energy though right? Oh wait. The DOD as an organization is the largest producer of CO2 in the world, and the worst polluter, by far. That’s the energy you need to stand up a fiat currency.

Fun-Technology-1371

You can do this on a closed network, no internet. Stored in RAM only as well. I do this at work all the time. Still wouldn’t recommend this though. What can be laser engraved can be lost in a fire or also even scratched away. A 40W CO2 laser isnt removing material to physically “stamp” the seed phrase, just marking it. 40W Fiber lasers do physically remove metal though, that would definitely be permanent. Idk what OP is using though, or what metal for that matter.

Ok_Firefighter4282

yeah that's wjhy I am selling my house in CO, I will be lucky to even break even.

kencaryling

CO2 is plant food get outta here with your nonsense climate doomsdayism. CO2 is the molecule of life.

Narf234

Wrong. CH4 + 02 = CO2 + H20 + BTC Better than letting methane run wild in the atmosphere.

kencaryling

CH4 + O2 = CO2 + H20 Carbon dioxide and water — clean AF

damnpagan

I had a policy with discussing climate change with people that there’s no point debating it with someone if they don’t even have a basic grasp of the facts. So, I came up with three simple questions that if they could answer, I’d be happy to discuss the topic with them (e.g., name a greenhouse gas other than CO2). You could try this with your coworker. It might force them to do some basic research before forming an opinion.

Additional_Day5547

CO$MO$ THE NEXT 1000x

dickingaround

Good on you. Also, worth mentioning to people: methane and CO2 generated from plants that grew this year or in very recent years, not from oil that last grew a million or billion years ago. So it's CO2 that left the atmosphere recently anyways (even if it does get returned). All bio-fuel is carbon neutral by definition (except for an oil used in machines to harvest it).

LossPreventionGuy

umm.. burning methane converts methane into CO2. it's true that releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is less bad than releasing methane, but calling it "good for the environment" is quite a stretch.

Braiins_mining

Yes we're burning bio-methane but it's super green because usually methane is released in the air and it's WAY MORE harmful than CO2. So yea, burning methane (called also gas flaring) is good for the environment.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; GIGATONS, a climate tech platform, has partnered with Alephium to use its blockchain technology for the GIGA Protocol, aiming to achieve gigaton-scale CO₂ reductions. Alephium's scalable and energy-efficient blockchain will support GIGATONS' mission to mobilize $100 billion for net-zero projects over the next decade. This partnership will enable tokenization of investments, ensuring transparency and accountability in climate finance. Alephium's technology aligns with GIGATONS' goals of sustainability and scalability, making it a key player in the transition to a net-zero economy. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

cade_chi

Oh, there we go again. The same energy consumption FUD not taking into account the CO2 balance of classical transactions as well as the fact that many miners addressed this topic by using renewable or excess grid energy. What stage is this now? I guess 3 of 5 before blow-off.

DerekTheComedian

TBH with Elmo Skum in a government position of the single WORST example of croneyism in US history, I would bet he breaks a trillion before Trump leaves office. The first administration was a test run. Now that he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected (not because of the constitution, he previously said he wanted to find a way to get a third term: i genuinely think he's so far gone that his handlers wIll drop him after 2028), the taxpayer theft will be even worse this time around. Our only hope is that the Senate dems can minimize the damage for the next 2 years, and we take back the house in 2027. If we can't manage that, this country is beyond fucked and we will have even more vigilantes hunting CO'S for sport.

BitCypher84

Key findings: 1. On a 50MW solarfarm 🤔8.1yrs to ROI without Bitcoin mining 👍3.7yrs to ROI with Bitcoin mining 2. ♻️Using Bitcoin mining reduces CO2 emissions by 50,000 tonnes/year 3. PoS based blockchains can not offer these features Source: https://x.com/DSBatten/status/1863582213486305742

reddit3k

They should buy solar fields and wind energy parks. Become an energy provider. They could offset enormous amounts of CO2 and also generate serious revenue by selling something that's always in demand: energy.

Garblin

You already mentioned that there's one very important difference here: No matter how much bitcoin any of us has, no-one is deprived the ability to live in a house. This holds true for most assets you might compare to. No-one is deprived of real estate of any sort. We're not wasting money on yachts that mostly sit in the dock. We're not emitting massive amounts of CO2 by taking 5 private jet trips a day. All that happens if we hodl is that the price go brr. Whether you use your wealth to make the world better or worse and to be a good person or not is largely a secondary point.

jcpham

I say this stuff because 25 years ago I worked night shifts at a coal fired power plant and back then 25 years ago the coal plant had a fiat infusion from the DOE to mix the coal with asphalt first to make it burn hotter in the boilers or something. I think I read a few years back that the DOE’s entire carbon capture project failed to produce any usable efficiency or reduction or capture of CO2. It was just a big waste of tax dollars. The only reason I know it is from working at the coal plant, seeing the DOE sign, and reading about the project folding 25 years after inception. I really hope private enterprise figures out a way to do something and turn atmospheric CO2 concentrations into something less world destroying but no one should kid themselves. Australia is saying the Great Barrier Reef is dead South Asia has been testing human survival in extreme heat Or it’s flooding like never seen before Or the Gulf of Mexico surface temperature is hotter than it’s ever been Or the AMOC is collapsing Or there’s pretty flowers growing in Greenland right now We’re already in a feedback loop unless someone breaks it but how tf do you reverse centuries of human behavior. Ultimately I have no answers.

cheenpo

for reals, that CO2 claim came out of nowhere Initially I also was shocked when I learned that the throughput rate was so low. But if the transactions are extradoinarily large between major entities, and any details are covered in some L2 roll ups (assuming I understand those correctly), then it is not as major of an issue. It does make us extremely reliant on the internet. Which is already a reality to some degree. What always makes me wonder though, is why bitcoin vs anyyyy other coin. Or even, and I have no idea if this is possible. A full reset, and then it be a true gold rush. I figure maybe because the USA holds the most. Quite a timeline to be in now

SmoothGoing

This was pretty good. Some gripes. The distracting presentation. I almost skipped right over it because of this goofy format. Natural resources are not "god's" but whatever. Bitcoin does not "capture CO2" so that is a weird claim. "Only go up" in value and "go up forever" and "astronomically up" are weird claims. No technological risks mentioned. Those do exist. No usability concerns mentioned. I.e. transaction data size limits, throughput limits, transaction fees, indeterminate zero subsidy mining environment in the future, etc.

bojothedawg

In the long run, our civilisation’s energy consumption is a proxy for our quality of life and level of economic development. Our goal from here should be to become a Kardashev Type I civilisation and then keep progressing beyond that to eventually use all the energy of multiple stars. We just beed to stop raising the atmospheric CO2 which is definitely possible with renewables like solar + nuclear,

SmoothGoing

There are so many other energy intensive and wasteful industries, including high end fashion crap that literally has not reason to exist except for elites flaunting.. And no complaints there, but there is with bitcoin mining. That electricity is bought and paid for. And mining does not even produce CO2. Generating that electricity does. If that is the "environmental concern," that gripe should be addressed to people selling the megawatts for profit, not the people buying them.

coinllector

CO1N.moon and thanks for the chance. Good luck everyone. 0xdd25707686f358b51b6506470e7b3b692af24fed

Hot_Permission_6202

> The problem is that you have to put your trust in an exchange to ever use BTC as anything other than a store of value.  This is incorrect. BTC is a peer to peer electronic cash system (from the whitepaper). Alice can send Bitcoin to Bob without a middleman exchange if they both self-custody Bitcoin. > Also, it is such a volatile asset that the one country that has adopted it as their standard has not had great success with it I disagree with this. [El Salvador's Nayib Bukele is sitting on $100 million of unrealized gains](https://decrypt.co/291243/el-salvador-bukele-100m-bitcoin-profit) > Let's not forget how awful BTC is for the environment.  Bitcoin can actually be great for the environment when the right power sources are used. When there's excess gas from pipelines, it usually gets burned off (gas flaring). Bitcoin miners can use this cheap extra energy instead of burning it to release CO2. [Bitcoin can also stabilize electrical grids, spur investment into renewable energy sources, and monetize stranded energy](https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/09/21/why-bitcoin-mining-might-actually-be-great-for-sustainability/)

LatinumGirlOnRisa

never knew? or space case I can be I didn't remember we can see deleted comments from earlier replies? anyway guess they realized they didn't have enough information BEFORE they posted their beliefs.😐 anyway, maybe they're not based stateside or not aware citizens? and/or maybe there are some other countries that are better or more ethical?🤔 but point being: someone very kindly replied, which I very much appreciate but also at the same time, they didn't seem to know anything about the concept of *'legacy enrollments'* of students & what+ why that is still a very all-to-common thing [& I don't know why any truly qualified student should be prevented from being accepted. even if a legacy kid who is not truly qualified gets in. but maybe there are so many of them that there's not enough space? not enough chairs &/or desks or auditorium space?] anyway, it's something that has been an issue for many years & a few USA TV/movie celebrity parents were charged with crimes related to their legacy kids' [yes, plural] college/university enrollments. and there was at least 1 big case I believe happened stateside shortly before the reporting of CO VI D, meaning within a few years before the advent of the pa * nd* em * ic.🤔

Big-Firefighter-6914

Fossil fuel extraction via direct drilling or oil rigs (pricy), refining (refineries are pricy), building and maintaining gas stations and hauling oil around the globe equally requires capital expenditure. Someone smarter than me probably did a calculation on which of all these energy source cost less total life cycle including long term cost to environment / health. Looks like bringing CO2 up from underground and pumping it into our atmosphere has long term cost via acceleration of climate change, which increases cost of building for future climate resiliency. Heat rain or storms increase in intensity. Insurance companies already know this so rates go up. Yet another cost. Thoughts on true cost of different energy sources?

asdfgghk

Ummm have you watched the news? There’s already thousands of fraudulent ballots being detected in CO and PA. These are just the ones that were detected. Sure it’s going on in other states to, it just hasn’t been detected.

RichBase8364

Sounds like Las Lenas delivered in spades. OP, how long were you out there -- the Saturday to Saturday travel package? I'm thinking of dual/ex-patting away from the CO/AK summers, possibly retirement in 10 years or so. USD still looking to be the king daddy, but maybe BTC/USDT will come around more in the next decade. It isn't going away.

Large-Inspector9756

$OSCAR army run by the OG $SHIB designer and CO-founder paradox and ryoshi

FabulousPossible5664

I understand the thinking as I grew up in CO and I've been around that mindset a lot. However now that I live in CA most of the people I see leaving are the most conservative ones who can't stand the libs anymore. Wouldn't you want to welcome those types who have had to live under the tyranny of Newsom and can warn of his dangerous policies from first hand experience? Just because someone fled CA doesn't mean they're a flaming lib.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; An Indian envirotech enterprise, Meta Materials Circular Markets (MMCM), is advancing sustainability in the automotive industry by focusing on end-of-life vehicles (ELVs). MMCM supports India's Vehicle Scrapping Policy through platforms like DigiELV for trading Certificates of Deposit and AutoLoop for streamlining scrapping operations. Their Decarbonization Program aims to save 2 million tons of CO2 by 2035, while ELV Credits offer traceable carbon credits. MMCM addresses informal scrapping, promoting eco-friendly practices and supporting government-authorized scrappers. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Injoker11

Wow you redittors are so stupid! Clearly he is right! A BITCOIN BANK TO MAKE PAYMENTS WITH BTC. HAHAHA, ANYONE STILL INVESTS IN BTC AFTER HEARING THIS CO-OPTION OF BTC

Archophob

oxygen is also a finite ressource, but there is not enough stuff we can burn to significantly lower the oxigen levels in the atmosphere. All we change is the level of some trace gas named CO2. We aren't enough humans yet to really deplete any natural ressource. It's the waste side we need to take care of. (That's why i always propose the energy solution with the smallest amount of waste: nuclear.)

georgke

I love this one. Inflation will drive many more into Bitcoin. But CBDC will be the biggest push ever when it comes. People still want to buy what they want to buy with their hard earned money and restricting it because of a CO2 budget overrun or some other ridiculous excuse is only going to speed up the exodus.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Bitcoin's environmental impact is significant due to its high energy consumption, primarily from fossil fuels. It uses around 150,000 GWh annually, similar to Malaysia's usage, resulting in 114,000 tons of CO2 emissions and 37,000 tons of electronic waste. While Bitcoin's proof of work method is energy-intensive, alternatives like proof of stake are less so. Efforts to mitigate its impact include using renewable energy and recycling heat from mining. As renewable energy adoption increases, Bitcoin's environmental footprint could decrease. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Nemozoli

If I remember correctly, phytoplankton in the oceans absorb more CO2 than all the trees in the world. This guy should put planktons into the oil... oh wait...

the_pwnererXx

this is green hydroelectric power, there is no CO2 dumping

jt7855

Great for Bhutan. Any Bitcoin mining project strengthens the network. But the only people concerned about the carbon footprint of Bitcoin mining are socialist who would rather bitcoin didn’t exist or people who are attempting to appease those socialist. Reality is Bitcoin mining must be profitable. Climate Science is unsettling. Like science should be. If you are skeptical, then you aren’t practicing science. On Aug. 20, Nikolov and Karl Zeller, a retired U.S. Forest Service meteorologist, published their study that found that recent warming is not the result of increasing CO2. Instead, after analyzing satellite data, the two researchers concluded that the Earth has warmed because it’s been absorbing more sunlight due to reduced global cloud cover. Portions of the study can be found on X—Sunlight And Clouds - Not CO2 - Drive Earth’s Climate; ‘Shocking’ New Study Finds Actual Study Roles of Earth’s Albedo Variations and Top-of-the-Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in Recent Warming: New Insights from Satellite and Surface Observations—Ned Nikolov and Karl F. Zeller https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7418/4/3/17

GrixM

Skimming through it, it basically just concludes what I already said: That there are theoretical grid decarbonization incentives, but that this hinges on a lot of challenges and assumptions, and that we're certainly nowhere near that as of now: "The influence of mining on RE generation and energy grid management is visible [3,12,30,56,57,59] *but not yet large enough to significantly affect the global RE sector*" That means regardless of how it progresses, it is probably too late anyway since global warming is a very urgent problem. Short term damage weighs far more than theoretical long-term benefits. And the short term damage of CO2 is a cumulative emission of 311 MtCO2e: https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci/ghg Converting that to death count per the figure in this paper, that means that bitcoin so far has doomed 70,286 people to death: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24487-w

GrixM

Mining releases CO2. As much as entire countries does, in fact. That causes global warming. Global warming kills people. And that's just the CO2, not to mention the classical kind of pollutants and toxic waste from the electronics.

ThatInternetGuy

Good for the planet. One less CO2 dumping.

peterk_se

It's Norway - corruption is barely existing here. It's just dumb green environmentalist movement that's grabbed ahold of things. They want to shut off the Norwegian oil production too even though it's the "greenest" production of petroleum in the world. Roughly 0.7kg CO2/barrel oil produced compared to like 15kg CO2/barrel oil produced in Africa/Middle East. Also every platform is observed 24/7 by satellites and the smallest oil slick is recorded and logged to the "petroleum police" with dire consequences.

Dajukz

I have no idea where you got the footprint of, but in the link of the original comment you can also see CO2 footprint, electronic waste etc relate to that of literal countries with millions of people in it But I don't understand what you mean by this

3pinripper

A few local businesses take it where I live in nw CO. In particular, one of these is a coffee shop owned by a woman who used to work for me, and was an advocate for BTC in the mid 2010’s. I should have listened to her then.

OppressorOppressed

I think by the world ending, its implied the world as we know it, like the end of humans or our civilization. sure CO2 has been higher, there also were no people around back then. you said it yourself, extinction events... i don't think anyone is arguing that this hunk of rock won't be here, that should be fine until we have problems with the life cycle of the sun in a few billion years.

Easy_Error295

Of course they do, banks and governments run the world. Do you really think the Earth’s environment is at its worst? Read up on climate levels during the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction period or the ‘Greenhouse World’ period. CO2 levels & temperature were 10x higher and no ice during those periods. Earth is 4800 million years old gone through multiple extinctions. Maybe im wrong but i don’t think any major organisation would be handing out money or spending so much knowing every is ending in a mere 30 year period. Just my perspective ✌️

Archophob

forget about "the smaller coins". There is no usecase for a "second best digital asset". Also, you might have seen Elon Musk posting memes about bitcoin of twitter when it still was called twitter. That guy probably did some buying and selling and might have more coins left than you'll ever own. No "wealth redistribution" here beyond what he already got from selling paypal, getting Nasa contracts for SpaceX and getting CO2-certificates for Tesla. Also, the people who use Blackrock or Fidelity Funds to buy Bitcoin ETFs are not poor. Don't get me wrong, bitcoin is a revolution. It breaks us free from the debt slavery of the fiat system by giving us a store of value that can't get as easily confiscated or stolen as gold. But it was never meant as a communist revolution. In a bitcoin-based economy, there still will be a few very rich people, and many more less rich people. Not neccessarily the same that are very rich today, but i also don't expect Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to die impoverished.

iwakan

The amount of CO2 released stays the same whether it's flared or used to power miners, so it doesn't really matter in the end. It's a tragedy either way. And also I wouldn't exactly find it an improvement if Russia could profit from it and use those profits to murder more Ukrainians.

iwakan

Well, let's see, shall we? There is about 0.75 kg natural gas per m^3, so 4.34 million m^3 is 3.26 million kg. Burning one kg natural gas produces 2.69 kg CO2. So that's 8.77 million kg per day, or **3.2 megaton per year**. Bitcoin mining, according to University of Cambridge, releases **76.06 megaton per year**, currently. So Bitcoin mining is around 23000% worse than what you describe.

Exotemporal

They're burning natural gas straight out of the ground because they can't sell it or store it. No one is in a better position to have cheap electricity. They might as well mine bitcoin with that excess energy if the CO2 is going into the atmosphere anyway. Nasty fuckers.

SmoothGoing

What is the exact CO2 count where you are? Let's compare that to Roentgen values where you are.

GrixM

Yes, it is actually killing people. Multiplying the emissions from bitcoin mining (Source: University of Cambridge centre for alternative finance) with out best guess for the number the deaths per amount of CO2 emissions (Source: The mortality cost of carbon, R. Daniel Bressler 2021), you get the result that Bitcoin dooms over **16 600 people to death every single year** at current rates.

VirinaB

I'm sure they think the problem is renewable energy, again. "This would never happen with coal and gasoline. Also those CO2 scrubbers are making the machines work less efficiently so let's get rid of them too."

Wyg6q17Dd5sNq59h

They did. It is CO2 driven.

The_Realist01

Climate change isn’t CO2 driven. It’s based on heat island effects from concrete and steel from what used to be fields and forests. Change that, you’ll get back to normal baseline “climate change”.

BoomerGenXMillGenZ

The overpopulation deniers/we are underpopulated believers are literal lunatics. They are clinically insane. Elon Musk is pushing that line too, that billions more people means more great minds to solve problems. Sure, let's cut down the remaining forests, fish the remaining life out of the oceans, add morem plastic and more CO2 and kill off more species to add some processing power. What a stupid fucking argument. They are INSANE.

Archophob

So, you take oil out of the ground, use atmospheric oxigen to burn it, get energy out of the reaction, and use 1/3 of that energy to confine and compress the resulting CO2, to put that back into the place where you got the oil from? I'd rather split uranium, there you only need less than 1/1000000th of the energy for waste management.

iwakan

Agree. I'm sure that it causes *some* incentives toward green build-out, but I am almost positive that it is not nearly enough to offset the increase in fossil fuel use it also causes. And certainly not fast enough, because the damage that bitcoin mining has already done is absolutely tremendous, regardless of what happens in the future. Fun fact, if you multiply the mortality of carbon emissions estimated by Bressler, R.D. in the paper "The mortality cost of carbon", with the yearly CO2 emissions caused by Bitcoin estimated by University of Cambridge, bitcoin dooms around 20 000 people to death every single year.

BossToneDude

Good stuff. I’d like to think I’m a realist. I try to size things up with reasonable accuracy, then draw a rational conclusion that could be shaded good or bad. Good point about selectively sharing information. I’m not so much about the posturing these days. Yet, there’s a lot of that going around. That’d be fantastic if we overshot on renewables. There is an incredible amount of pollution with aircraft and space vehicles (on a per flight basis) to pick out two contributors. Some of the current pollution spewing propulsion methods will be harder to get away from than others. Every bit of renewable helps presuming a net benefit over CO2 for production of the actual product / infrastructure itself. Maybe be the world can get down to a point where the leftovers that cause pollution are statistically insignificant. It won’t be in my lifetime

BossToneDude

Agreed. Well, it helps the create sugar. Close enough. H20 + CO2 (w/sunlight and chlorophyl as a catalyst) —> C6H12O6 (glucose). 7th grade science 🙂 The problem is introduced when there aren’t enough plants to consume all the CO2. Cut down a lot of plants that take in a lot of CO2 (think of something like a rain forest) and it gets harder. 🤷🏼‍♂️ ————————————— Fact check: Plants cannot absorb all the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/01/18/fact-check-plants-cannot-absorb-all-carbon-dioxide/11022863002/

BossToneDude

From ChatGPT - The Northern Lights carbon capture and storage (CCS) project, developed by Equinor, Shell, and TotalEnergies, is valued at approximately 6.9 billion NOK (Norwegian Krone), which is equivalent to around $670 million USD. This valuation reflects the investment required for the initial phase of the project. From the linked article - TotalEnergies is aiming to develop a CO2 storage capacity (CCS) of more than 10 million tons by 2030, both for its own facilities and for its customers. Respectfully, I’m not personally interested in doing the legwork on the entire world solution. It’s a toe-in-the water concept post. There’s no assertion that BTC and carbon capture are linked. Intellectually, it is an interesting way to manage excess power generation. Yet I could see arguments for using energy storage solutions to even things out. That would avoid spending money on excess capital infrastructure for carbon capture that might rarely get used… it’s a practical consideration. 🤓 Have a good one

Alfador8

In the oil industry methane is seen as a dangerous byproduct of extraction and production. They capture it, vent it away, and flare (burn) it. Bitcoin miners shunt that vented methane to electricity generators, and plug ASICs into them to mine bitcoin. The key key thing here from an environmental perspective is that generators are better at converting methane to CO2 than flaring, so less methane ends up in the atmosphere. With landfills it's basically the same process, except the gas is collected via perforated tubes under the surface of the landfill.

Alfador8

Bitcoin enables monetization of renewable energy sources that aren't yet connected to the grid or being used for other purposes. This lowers the hurdle for investing in renewable energy infrastructure. Once energy is being created it can immediately be monetized, rather than then having to pay additional millions of dollars to make it usable. If/when the energy source becomes available to other consumers, they will outcompete the bitcoin miners (as miners require extremely cheap electricity to be profitable) and the the miners will move on to subsidizing the next renewable infrastructure project. Bitcoin miners also monetize the capture of methane, which is a more potent green house gas than CO2. Previously there was no economic incentive for mitigating methane emissions. Now, some landfills and oil fields are capturing that methane and turning it into bitcoin, generating profit and reducing the amount of methane entering the atmosphere.

Archophob

Actually, most modern day knowledge is only understood by a tiny fraction of humanity. Einstein published general relativity more than 100 years ago. Still, most physicist only understand special relativity and have a vague idea what general relativity is. Most people have a vague idea about what the greenhouse effect is. But if you follow the logical implications of this vague idea to explain how more CO2 causes climate change, then there are many dead ends that make you ask the question "is it all a hoax?". Just because really understanding the physics used in climate models is well beyond highschool level. The economics on money creation are another example of what an overwhelming majority of people never want to think about. But you need to go down that specific rabbithole to grasp the implications of BTC being more scarce than gold. Which takes time you can't use on another rabbit hole - like your favorite MMORPG. Those are only examples of stuff i just know enough about to be beyond Mt-Stupid on the Dunning-Kruger curve - knowing that each of these topics has more to research in it than i will learn in my remaining lifetime. Yes, i'm pretty sure, that on any given topic, the vast majority is totally clueless. And the echo chambers of those who understand, hardly ever overlap that much.

Defusion55

I'd guess its related to FTX and CO liquidating assets for the bankruptcy proceedings. That whole shit show is far from over.

Melting_Harps

Also worth noting is that is trying to attract lots of startups that have been in the grayzone legally speaking, and give them a formal structure to incorporate and operate in WY. All in all, WY with its large data centers and tons of renewable is looking like the new spot for BItcoiners to to park there money and mine/invest/incorporate. Being a Bitcoin based founder in CO was an f'ing nightmare, from capital raising to compliance to all sorts of regulatory changes to the hemp Industry etc... hopefully Lummis continues to run and pushes this forward. I've already incorporated as a WY resident and I'm anticipating being on a board(s) in a few years when I get the 'bug' again to jump in the fray. PM me if you want to chat further feel free as I have lot of insights from this process.

RatherOakyAfterbirth

Depends on your definition of rich. I own three homes outright, one in the mountains in CO, one on the beach in FL and one in CA.   I’m happily married, drive two of my dream cars, 68 Camaro and an Audi RS5 Sportback.  I’ll be retired at 45 and living very comfortably for the rest of my life. Investing and strategic career moves have been very good to me. 

jail_grover_norquist

"where do you work?" "BITCOIN TRADER. TRADER. BIT_CO_IN_TRADER. TRADER TRADER. FX TRADER. BITCOIN." "uh...ok"

DigitalScythious

XRP, XDC, XLM. Faster time settlement, less CO2 emissions, cheaper fees then BTC and Visa

Nefarious-Botany

Awe geez you mean the millions of tons of concrete to make ethw offices that bank chimps drive miles to get to and uses nonstop HVAC and also supports servers the size of small bitcoin farms is worse in terms of CO2 output! Next you'll say renewable waste energy could power bitcoin farms!?

reasanable_reasoning

By sicking CO

liquid_at

True... He definitely busted up Teslas monopoly on the e-vehicle sector by giving other manufacturers a reason to push for electric. Not sure how many gigatons of CO2 it cost us, but it'll make summers a lot warmer, so we got that going for us.

Budget-Laugh7592

245 TONS of CO2 for a single transaction. We are going in hell together. Happy mining!

moemonies1

My fellow bitcoiners! My post was removed due to, to many price discussions. My post was gaining many upvotes until removal. So i had to post here and other places to keep truth alive. In my formula, you will clearly see why btc dips and will also see now what direction it takes. This is 100% accurate and guaranteed. Hope you all are successful! P=E_V=V₂+ at A H <3 Cas =0 H C y=k H HH C=2r H H w=mg s=vot+1/1at² a² + b² ΣF=c CO H H-C-0-H k<0 k=1/√n(n+1) k=1 - NH H R=R₁+R₂+... A=r² (x+y)"= E=mc² NH₂ F=ma c²= a² + b² 8² +6² = c² 64+36=c² 100 = ² √100= √² +10=C (2)= 3 =1 E=E,+E W= c² f(-x)= a(-x)+b=-(ax!=) 0 🤪

iwakan

Except, you know, the 20 000 people that are doomed to death because of Bitcoin's CO2 emissions each year.

Braviosa

You are correct that correlation is not causation, but we can extrapolate. There is evidence of correlation between cholesterol and heart disease but no direct causation has been identified. Tell your doctor, "please provide one piece of evidence when something like this has ever happened. You are proving my point. You have no idea what is going to happen." when he tells you to try lower your cholesterol. There is correlation but no proof of causation between global temperatures and CO2. I'm sure you know what to tell climate activists now who try to force their agenda.

zada-dog

It's a common misconception. But please dig a bit more into this topic, the negative environment impact narrative is not true. Try these to get the research started: * [Making bicoin carbon negative - What bitcoin Did podcast](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIE2mXme0gE&ab_channel=WhatBitcoinDid) * [Forbes: Bitcoin to reduce more emissions that it produces](https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/07/08/bitcoin-network-to-reduce-more-emissions-than-its-energy-sources-produce/?sh=70ed389544d5) Bitcoin mining is the ONLY viable option we're aware of that can literally take garbage (CO2, Methane, un-used flare gas, etc...) and monetize it. That is simply remarkable. There is no other technology that can do it as efficiently and with the incentives that bitcoin mining has. Please read up on this; I promise you'll have a very different view on this after digging into it more, and you'll realize the mainstream narrative on negative impacts is just wrong.

TheLazyD0G

Yeah, that's basically the idea. It's something that has existed for quite a while and is part of the paris climate agreement. An airline emits, say, 1 million tons of CO2 in a year. They then pay for planting enough trees to absorb 1 million tons of CO2. However. It was possible for the company that planted the trees to sell the same credit to numerous different businesses. But, by tokenizing the credits on chain, they could be publicly audited and verified as only being claimed once. https://www.chia.net/climate/