Half Issue / Update
Hey friends, welcome back to Think Bitcoin™. You may have noticed the absence of a new issue yesterday. I want to assure you that I have neither forgotten nor abandoned this project. Last week I came down with a bad case of gastroenteritis that knocked me on my ass for about five days. Fortunately, I have improved immensely and am quickly re-gaining my strength, but the bug obviously kept me from writing (or doing much of anything) for the majority of last week. Hence, no new issue.
However, I do want to note a couple of things that are on my radar and that are of interest.
A little over a week ago, Congress announced that they would be holding a hearing to examine the environmental impact of crypto mining (Bitcoin mining, in particular). The Oversight and Investigations subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is making a list of witnesses to call. The hearing doesn’t have a date yet, but could come together in the next few weeks.
I bring this up because, among crypto critics, there’s growing concern about the perceived environmental footprint of Bitcoin. While Bitcoin’s environmental impact is of course fair game for discussion, it’s important that the discussion be had in good faith, using good data, and considering the benefits and services Bitcoin provides (e.g. sound money to which everyone, king and pauper alike, has equal access).
In October of last year over 70 environmental groups signed a letter to Congress decrying Bitcoin’s energy usage. The letter cited a paper by Camilo Mora, which appeared in Nature Magazine in 2018. This paper, titled “Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2°C,” has been debunked multiple times in the same publication. Nic Carter has also published rejoinders to the piece.
The problem with the “Mora et. al.” paper, as it’s come to be known, is that, despite its flaws and errors, it has become a treasure trove for politicians and organizations interested in environmental fearmongering about Bitcoin and proof-of-work consensus mechanisms.
The two papers debunking it in Nature Magazine are:
“Rational mining limits Bitcoin emissions,” by Nicolas Houy.
“Implausible projections overestimate near-term Bitcoin CO2 emissions,” by Eric Masanet, Arman Shehabi, Nuoa Lei, Harald Vranken, Jonathan Koomey &
Jens Malmodin.
These papers can be accessed using Sci-Hub, if you’re interested.
Since the Mora paper may receive heavy play in the the lead up to the hearing and the hearing itself, I wanted to make sure you are aware of it and have proper context.
Prior to getting ill last week, I was planning on spending time exploring Magus Perivallon’s 4-part series on Medium about Bitcoin and climate change, which can be found here.
As always, thanks for reading! And thanks for bearing with me through my illness last week.
“Civilization is in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.” -H.G. Wells
See you next week,
Logan
SUPPORT
Send bitcoin to my Strike
SOCIAL
DISCLAIMER: I am not investment advisor and this is not investment advice. This is not, nor is it intended to be, a recommendation to buy or sell any security or digital asset. Nothing in this newsletter should be interpreted as a solicitation, a recommendation, or advice to buy or sell any security or digital asset. Nothing in this newsletter should be considered legal advice of any kind. This newsletter exists for educational and informational purposes only. Do your own research before making any investment decisions.
© Copyright The Why of FI.