Is Bitcoin a Threat to the Planet? Its proponents respond

CQFD – More than 20 members of the House of Representatives had sent a letter dated April 20, 2022 to the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Michael Regan. Lawmakers have called on the institution to investigate the negative effects of cryptocurrency mining, including Bitcoin (BTC), such as: noise pollution, electronic waste and CO2 emissions. The cryptographic community did not stand idly by in the face of this attack: stolen? MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor and Bitcoin Mining Council member companies have also taken their pens to fight.

Bitcoin and the environment: green defense

Michael Saylor is one of the signatories of the letter of May 2, 2022 to the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. This letter was signed by more than 50 proponents of bitcoin mining.

It is, according to Michael Saylor, a “response to clear up confusion, correct inaccuracies and educate the public.” This reply indicates that the representatives’ letter is ” based on various misperceptions of Bitcoin and its mining.

Proponents of Bitcoin have bluntly dismissed allegations that mining generates carbon emissions. They specify that minors just buy electricity on the gridas well as Microsoft and other data center operators.

>> Are you looking for an eco-friendly cryptographic platform? Join FTX (affiliate link) <

Would Bitcoin really be a threat to the planet?

Rather, carbon emissions depend on “electricity generation,” not cryptocurrency mining. However, the letter recalls that the production of electricity and, therefore, emissions, are the consequences:

“Political choices and economic realities that determine the nature of the electricity grid “.

The defense of mining further refutes the figure of 30,700 tons of e-waste per year produced by bitcoin mining. This information is collected by lawmakers in their application to the EPA administrator. However, it would come from a biased source whose reliability is questionable.

The letter co-signed by Saylor also addresses the argument that a single bitcoin transaction would feed an average American household for a month.

A reasoning based on the energy cost per BTC transaction I would just be wrong. The future energy growth of Bitcoin would depend rather on two variables.

It depends on one side issuance of bitcoinsresult of mining. The production of new bitcoins is influenced by the evolution of the price and supply of cryptocurrency.

This energy growth would depend on the other hand, the rates that users are willing to pay to negotiate ”.

So wouldn’t Bitcoin be a threat to the planet? Rather, it would provide an opportunity for the United States to be “more innovative, economically resilient, and ultimately stronger in the future.” At least if Uncle Sam decides to adopt the “Bitcoin network” and accept his mining.

But will the Bitcoin Mining Council make the Environmental Protection Agency and other lawmakers hear the reason they just want to? a moratorium on bitcoin mining ?

You can heat your home by extracting Bitcoin! If you’d rather just buy one, to register without waiting for the reference cryptographic platform FTX and benefit from a lifetime discount on your sales commissions (affiliate link, check the conditions on the official website).

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: