{"id":19383,"date":"2024-03-29T17:50:42","date_gmt":"2024-03-29T16:50:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/affidaty.io\/blog\/?p=19383"},"modified":"2024-07-24T17:51:16","modified_gmt":"2024-07-24T15:51:16","slug":"cryptocurrencies-pollution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/affidaty.io\/blog\/en\/2024\/03\/cryptocurrencies-pollution\/","title":{"rendered":"Cryptocurrencies & pollution are they connected?\u2028"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Already in 2021, I wrote an article on my blog dedicated to this topic, which I will now delve into, enriching it with details, data, and updates.
Given the scope of the changes that Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain are bringing to society, the aspect of their ecological sustainability cannot be ignored.

The question I pose is: are we so enthusiastic and fascinated by the Cryptocurrency revolution and the many facets of innovative Blockchain technology that we have lost sight of such an important and impactful issue in our lives?<\/em>
We certainly cannot ignore this aspect if we want this technology to truly be part of our future.

In this article, we will therefore delve into many aspects, aware also of the fact that too often the topic has been addressed with unaware superficiality or conscious partiality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Premises<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Before delving into the discussion, some premises are necessary, which I list below.

In this context, I will talk about Cryptocurrencies, implying those that use Blockchain technology, as from a certain point of view, it is the technology used that is under scrutiny. Blockchain is the first and most used among them and therefore representative of the Crypto phenomenon. This assumption may seem trivial, but it is not at all, as there are Cryptocurrencies that use alternative technologies to Blockchain, sometimes extremely interesting, although they are still a small part.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I will also assume knowledge of some terms and their meanings to avoid dispersing the focus of the article and keep it as concise as possible. Many of the data and graphs proposed also refer to different years, only partially overlapping: this is due to an intrinsic difficulty in retrieving the data, but this does not detract from the overall considerations that will be expressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the most important premise to be made is about the meaning of pollution<\/mark>. We all perceive it as something wrong that harms people and the ecosystem.

In reality, however, there is always a level of pollution commonly accepted because it evidently associates with great benefits.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, we can highlight how the production of any good (not only on an industrial level), including those for food use, implies a consumption of “non-clean” energy and often the use of materials that harm Mother Earth.
Clearly, if we were to start from this assumption, we should consider almost everything as polluting<\/mark>, but this would not help us to answer the title of this article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The point that needs to be addressed is not so much whether, but how much Cryptocurrencies pollute in relation to what they produce.<\/mark><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let’s try to find out using mainly concrete data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The Critique: Miners’ Consumption<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The certainly legitimate criticism is that Bitcoin or rather the miners, using the Proof of Work mechanism as a consensus mechanism, consume a huge amount of electric energy to support the network. In an interesting scientific publication from 2021 titled “An analysis of energy consumption and carbon footprints of cryptocurrencies and possible solutions”<\/em><\/a>, it is highlighted how indeed, the main cause of the enormous energy consumption is precisely the PoW consensus mechanism<\/mark>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In extreme synthesis, Proof of Work, literally proof of work, is the mechanism that ensures consensus among the various parties (the miners) for writing on the blockchain. In practice, this mechanism ensures that none of the participants supporting the decentralized system cheats, perhaps by creating some malicious transaction, spending, for example, the same sum twice (Double Spending problem).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proof of Work solves this problem by putting the various participants in competition, racing to solve increasingly complex mathematical puzzles over time, hence the significant consumption of electric energy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, as I write this article (February 2024), Bitcoin alone (that is, the miners supporting the system), if it were a country, would r<\/strong>ank 24th in the world for energy consumption estimating about 170.4TWh per year<\/mark>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In practice, in a virtual ranking, it would be between Egypt and South Africa
(Here<\/a> is the source of the list of countries).

So from this point of view, at least for Bitcoin, the answer would be: Yes, Bitcoin pollutes!<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, however, returning to the premise, the point is not whether it pollutes or not, but whether it pollutes too much or not in relation to what it produces<\/mark>, right?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Perspective is everything<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Changing perspective by introducing other elements may allow for a better understanding of each argument. For example, let’s analyze new comparisons taken from the excellent website of the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (here<\/a>), which offers an interactive graph (of which I provide an excerpt at the end) representing the consumption of other activities:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"