Elizabeth Warren calls for a crackdown on 'environmentally wasteful cryptocurrencies' to fight the climate crisis
By - sportsfanatic61
The underlying issue is still fossil fuels. I don't expect the government to do anything meaningful for the environment at this stage.
Edit: As pointed out below, animal agriculture and land use are an inseperable part of the issue as well. If the feds gave a damn they know what the real issues are.
And animal agriculture. Really, nothing is destroying the planet at faster rate than animal agriculture.
Efficiency will always matter regardless of the energy source.
So we should create a currency that is backed by nothing? If we become more and more efficient we essential nullify the usage of crypto anyway. At which point we should hopefully all be in a utopia with unlimited energy.
The whole point of PoW is that it's difficult and takes time and energy. If your block is created easily then you compromise security, trustless transactions, and decentralization. Which are the whole point of crypto anyway. Being efficient is not the point. Having a store of value from something that is difficult and costly to do is the whole point of PoW. Of course we should thrive for efficiency but that's not the point of crypto just like it's not the point of a lot of things.
Farming cattle is extremely inefficient and not at all required for our species to survive. But we do it anyway. The governments aren't calling for an end to that though. The governments are calling for an end to crypto because it threatens them and their banking institutions control of global trade and currency.
As an ending note: PoS is an interesting alternative and fixes these energy problems but also introduces it's own problems and somewhat of a paradox on it's creation of reliance of current fiat value.
PoW was just the obvious choice at the time, there's no reason why we shouldn't strive for efficiency in absolutely everything we do.
There is if you sacrifice the entire point of the decentralized public ledger.
PoW was not "just the obvious choice" at the time. It was chosen for a reason. All these people in this thread going "oh well I support the green cryptos and PoS" most likely have no idea of the positives and negatives of both systems.
Most people think "oh ok, ETH/ADA is gonna be BTC but green" without caring to understand at all what makes either one valuable or how either system works and their advantages and disadvantages.
It's very energy efficient for me to pedal my bike to work. But if my goal is getting there quickly then that's not the best method of transportation is it? Should some people bike to work? Sure. Should everyone? See how that's impractical and simplify the situation? That's exactly what you are doing when you say "just be energy efficient." Maybe it has its drawbacks too because I don't think I can even use my bike alone to get to Hawaii for example. Energy efficiency is not the only factor.
We should strive for energy efficiency yes. But most people (and yourself it seems) in this thread seem to not at all understand crypto and just want to pretend like it's as simple as biking to Mars.
Edit: sorry I thought the person I was replying to was the original person. Made too many assumptions about your opinions.
Induced demand though. There's already at least a dozen coins aiming to be zero carbon. People who have environmental issues with bitcoin buy those, that uses up newly created renewable energy, increasing total energy consumption.
The true underlying issue with CO2 emissions is that we use more energy than we are capable of producing renewably, hence we dig up energy from the ground to burn. Phasing out fossil fuels needs to go hand in hand with reducing total energy use if we want a chance at significantly reducing CO2 emissions. Not using crypto would accomplish that without affecting anyone's QOL.
The underlying issue is that the huge profit machines that have made money based on private exploitation of natural resources hand over first for the past 100 have no incentive to stop because they are in bed with the government. Blaming anything else is just a distraction but please keep feeding into their narrative while they rape the natural landscape and claim that the oil/gas is their private winnings.
That last sentence is just so incredibly naive.
Yup, doesn't matter who we vote for the government is going to be incompetent. We need direct action.
Glad this is at the top. The whole point of PoW is to prove that something of value was used to produce the block. What is something all of humanity values? Energy. How that energy is produced is the issue. Not the PoW itself. I'm all for PoS and I'm quite the lover of ETH personally. But this whole making PoW coins villains misses the point. Humanity values energy. We've come up with a currency that is able to basically harness the value of energy as a public ledger that does not require a central entity to control. It's an amazing and creative technology. The problem is where the energy comes from. Not the technology itself. It's like blaming televisions and refrigerators for consuming too much energy. Currency in our world is as essential as food storage is. Definitely more essential than TVs. And with the way the US and other nations keep printing money from thin air. It's nice to have something that actually has a value of work behind it.
Would love a congressional committee to dive into the environmental cost of regular banking system vs cryptocurrencies
Regular banking is way more energy efficient than crypto. Bitcoin transactions are just crazy.
All PoW cryptocoins should just go away. PoS are clearly the future of crypto.
I recently sold all my PoW and got PoS coins instead exactly because of the climate impact.
There's many more consensus mechanisms than just PoS that are also very environmentally friendly that you should be careful not to discount.
Per user maybe, but regular banking does consume more electricity in total.
Bitcoin energy consumption would rise exponentially if more people used bitcoins as currency. Cracking down while it's still tiny makes a lot more sense than waiting for it to become a monster energy sink.
This especially makes no sense given that there are perfectly good PoS alternative cryptos. Anyone reasonable, who believes in crypto actually becoming useful, realises this.
>imagine if things were opposite and Bitcoin had always been proof-of-stake with fast, cheap transactions. Then years later Cardano came along and said “hey, we do the same thing but with a consensus method called ‘proof-of-work’. Transactions cost three bucks and take ten minutes, and the network requires the electricity consumption of Greece just to process 7 transactions per second”.
>You’d tell them get the fudge out and shut the front door.
We can advocate for shift to PoS without advocating for “cracking down”. The premise behind crypto is decentralized governance, ffs
I agree - more people should not use Bitcoin, at least until it switches to POS if it ever does that. But bitcoin is already very limited in capabilities and throughput, more people can't really use it. So I'm not very worried about that.
I agree Bitcoin is a piece of shit, but we cant remove it by closing our eyes or trying to stamp it out. We have to outcompete it by fostering better alternatives.
People have been saying the market will fix it for a long time now. Just as the same people have been saying bitcoins will crash in price. Neither has happened and it actually seems to have gone in the opposite direction.
Besides, the market needs government intervention when it comes to handling externalities like environmental costs. Even Hayek, regarded as the father of capitalist economics, taught that in his essay, [The Road to Serfdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom):
>To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances, or to require special precautions in their use, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. The only question here is whether in the particular instance the advantages gained are greater than the social costs they impose.
>Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question, or to those willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation.
>Even the most essential prerequisite of its [the market's] proper functioning, the prevention of fraud and deception (including exploitation of ignorance), provides a great and by no means fully accomplished object of legislative activity.
>There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.
We can't afford to just keep waiting for Godot. This is the right moment for environmental regulatory action, before bitcoin becomes too big to stop.
It is coming to fruition, it already exists in many other ledgers, and Bitcoin has crashed in price, by over 70%, many times...
> Besides, the market needs government intervention
It needs *governance*, it doesn't need nation-state intervention. That's what the ultimate idea is, people are taking governance and regulation of the financial system and taking them out of the hands of incompetent and corrupt officials at the SEC, FINRA, and others, and embedding them into the literal monetary system so they can't be violated at all.
We don't need regulations or watchdogs or fines about naked short sellers, if it's just literally impossible to send out a tokenized equity that you don't own, it can simply be *impossible to cheat that way*.
We don't need courts or police to come liquidate your possessions when you default on a loan, a smart contract can simply force your collateral to be transferred.
The entire idea is that governance shouldn't be a set of laws that get poorly enforced on cheaters *after they've cheated*, it should be a set of rules backed into the money itself that *prevents cheating*.
> before bitcoin becomes too big to stop.
It's already too big to stop. It's already legal foreign currency now, by law the US and everybody else has to treat it the same as any other foreign currency like the British Pound or the Euro.
It can't be censored, it can't be taken offline, it can't be confiscated. Nodes run in every country and in satellites in space. If one country tries to ban it or stop mining, the investments and the miners simply move themselves, and their significant economy-stimulating activities, somewhere else. Nation-state governments can either get on board with the digitization of money and try to embrace the idea and compete with bitcoin so that it goes away, or they can lose relevance in the global economy. If they wanted to stop if they needed to prevent someone from seeing the need to develop it - they needed to prevent 2008 from happening.
Bitcoin defenders have tried producing numbers that put them at about the same level. I don't think the comparison stands though.
Firstly, the numbers seem like an overestimate. The energy used by data centres seemed to assume nearly all data centre energy was used for banking, which seems unreasonable.
Secondly, it included energy costs of banks. Unless bitcoin is providing mortgages and advising in business loans, that doesn't seem fair.
Banking consumes way more energy with branches and ATMs, not data centers. But yeah, it's not a fair comparison - banking serves billions, crypto serves millions, though there are decentralized loans and all kinds of other financial instruments, so it is offering useful services similar to banking.
Yeah but that's entirely down to volume. People actually spend money, whereas only drug users/vendors (no judgement) and paedophiles (lots of judgement) spend bitcoin. And ofc far more users of regular banking than crypto.
People use the USD for every single thing you listed as well, so..
Your characterization of Bitcoin as a crime currency doesn't really hold up. Estimates are that about 2% of bitcoin is criminal, which makes sense given that every transaction is public and trackable. Estimates also show that up to 30% of USD cash is locked into exclusively criminal enterprises. It's untrackable, private, and universally accepted. The Silk Road got a lot of press, but it was tiny compared to dollar-denominated crime.
Traditional finance has gotten the cost per-person and per-transaction down because it has scaled to serve billions of people. The same economies of scale will develop and crypto also serves billions of people. We're not there yet obviously, but that's like being mad the first prototype solar panel cost too much to make.
>Estimates are that about 2% of bitcoin is criminal,
Hence why I said *spending.* Well aware that the majority of bitcoin isn't held by criminals. It's mostly bought by people hoping the price will go up so they can sell it to other people who hope the price will go up. IMO that's also a massive waste of energy but whatever.
People generally do not use bitcoin for day-to-day purchases, which makes the total energy usage even more absurd.
Let me rephrase, 2% of *transactions* are criminal is what they're showing.
There's definitely a lot of speculation, but you'd be surprised - I've bought silver with bitcoin, I paid for my VPN with Bitcoin, a Chase report says more than 30% of US businesses accept it. And places like Venezuela and Argentina use it for mundane purchases because their local currencies are even more unstable than Bitcoin. So it has real uses and is being used by real people.
This cannot be generalized. I would agree with the shift to PoS though.
Banking energy use is estimated to be double the energy than Bitcoin use but the world banking system handles an estimated $80 trillion dollars (converted to USD) and billions of transactions. Bitcoin is currently around like $660 billion market cap? I'm not going to try and pretend to scale that but Bitcoin is definitely the loser in efficiency.
The biggest joke of anyone defending Bitcoin or any cryptocurrency is you're basically helping destabilize the status quo. No, not the banking system, but civility. Cartels, terrorists, foreign agents, hackers, money laundering, crime payments, trafficking, unregulated drug trade, fraud, and more. These things thrive off of crypto and everyone who "invests" their money into it helps stabilize the platform for those people to move money. If anyone thinks a "public ledger" is protection against this they are delusional. But enjoy the gains I guess there are external costs everyone else has to pay.
Casinos operate despite money laundering. Cash is used despite it slipping between the hands of criminals. The things you mentioned occurred before Bitcoin's invention.
For many people the status quo is not adequate or satisfactory so they welcome change. I don't support inefficient methods of doing anything. Rather than promoting trade we need to turn distributed consensus forming mechanisms towards protecting our environment.
Those who destroy the environment deserve the least reward. People like Gates and Musk know that so they write books on how to solve climate change and make luxury electric vehicles to prove it can be done with technology.
Casinos are still regulated and also conform to the bank secrecy act. Did you hear about the $400 billion stolen in US pandemic relief?Much of which was converted to Bitcoin? I'd like to hear about someone laundering $400 billion through a casino. Or a hacker requesting casino chips as payment for ransomware. I get that fiat currency is used for all the same things but we can't pretend the scale and ease is a bit unprecedented.
>to prove it can be done with technology
It can be done _only_ with technology.
Perhaps its a system that can improve in time? Just because it doesn't exist right now, doesn't mean it never can. Such as, many apps are tracking terrorists/drug carterls/etc. So, technology can help us in many areas in time. But, removing banks entirely, couldn't we set a fixed mortgage rate/lending rate for cars/homes/student loans/etc. If there was no profit motive to extract from the people? I think tech can go in many ways from here.
How they gonna get their bribes... oh, sorry, "campaign contributions" then?
Regular banking facilitates purchases, loans, investment, housing, bonds, and many more things.
Bitcoin facilitates nothing but it's own asset bubble... and crime. That's the only *use* I see of bitcoin as anything but a global pyramid scheme. It provides a way to monetize hacked computing power, and a way to launder ransomware payments. It's not a coincidence that ransomware exploded after Bitcoin settled in.
I was excited about Bitcoin when it first appeared. I'm one of the few people who has ever used Bitcoin to *purchase* something.
But with the benefit of hindsight it's a net negative on humanity, between the crime and the wasted energy and silicon.
And that's not getting into the obnoxiousness of its boosters, who endlessly need to promote it because the more Bitcoin buyers there are, the more Bitcoin holders make.
I would be very happy to see converting Bitcoin into real currency (or vice versa) banned in first world countries based on that.
> Bitcoin facilities nothing but its own asset bubble… and crime.
You are wrong. Here’s one legitimate use case for Bitcoin- The immigration attorneys I work with have seen many people turn to Bitcoin (or altcoins like stellar lumens, or stablecoins like Tether) to protect their lives and life savings from the massive political and financial upheaval from Venezuela, Colombia, Argentina, and other countries - when the traditional banking system failed them, or sided with corruption.
Without a decentralized asset like cryptocurrency, these folks probably would not have escaped violent threats to their families, and if they had escaped they would have arrived in another country with no financial assets. In the past, oppressed people escaped dictators and facist regimes by smuggling gold and gems in their bodies or clothes. Cryptocurrency is currently providing a much more secure and stable way for people to do the same thing.
Bitcoin launched 12 years ago, and people like you have been screaming “bubble” and “crime” ever since, despite growing use and application from the traditional financial world and from legitimate industries not conducting crime.
Here’s a second legitimate example: Bitcoin first popularized the idea of blockchain technology, which is now being implemented across multiple industries. For example, blockchain tech is being used in medicine: [COVID vaccine distribution was managed with blockchain tech.](https://www.ibm.com/blockchain/solutions/vaccine-distribution)
People were saying “Bitcoin is a bubble” since 2017. And now the price is about twice what it was in 2017. That’s not what an asset bubble looks like. That’s what volatility looks like, which is not unusual for a new technology.
Yes, criminals use Bitcoin because it is worth something. Criminals also use cash, electronics, prescription drugs, and [Tide laundry detergent](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/why-are-criminals-stealing-tide-detergent-and-using-it-for-money/254631/) for the same reason.
> Regular banking facilitates purchases, loans, investment, housing, bonds, and many more things.
All of those can, and in most cases do, exist in crypto.
* Over 30% of businesses in America accept some form of cryto, today, according to a JP Morgan Chase report.
* You can get decentralized finance loans, today.
* People have tokenized their deeds and trade home ownership on-chain, today.
* A EU central bank has bonds issued on-chain, today.
* It has many other applications in development, like tokenized equities, tickets, proof of identification, single sign on, and many more.
It's still very early development, but the use cases for crypto are very real, parallel the things banks do, but without the expensive middle man leeching his cut, and more are developing every day. There are a lot of scams, vaporware, and nonsense like proof of work wasting energy, but it's an entirely new form of technology that hasn't gone mainstream yet, of course there will be growing pains.
If you don't think there's an expensive middleman leaching his cut you aren't paying attention. These use cases you talk about are generally super expensive, both in dilution and transaction fees. Also temporary VC money is big
I don't need a "currency" for single sign on lol. And good luck on defi loans w/ low interest rates when the crypto people are looking to double their money ever year or whatever
You're saying the equivalent of "If you think there's no hidden cost to using Linux you're not paying attention." The entire internet runs on Linux and open source software - there is no secret middleman screwing Amazon because they use Apache for free.
Now the fees are a valid concern. The entire industry is still young and there are definitely transaction fees, these are decreasing over time and as economies of scale take effect, but that doesn't help you now.
> I don't need a "currency" for single sign on lol.
Well it's not currency, that's the entire point. It's all just unchangeable public ledgers, you can put whatever information you want in them. Right now lots of people use Google for single sign on, but if you upset the Google gods they can cancel your account and now you can't login to any of the other services. If you use something like Ethereum, nobody can cancel your account, and it's provable that you are who you say you are. It's very much like a secure signature for your emails or code releases to say "this was in fact made by me". It's not *necessary* sure, but it is *better*.
> And good luck on defi loans w/ low interest rates
Right now the going rate is about 1% APR.
It's all screwed up rn because of the bubble and scam. Long-run it's not gonna be cheaper.
You want a defi loan? Someone is taking a risk on you defaulting. So there's underwriting the loan. Process is gonna be similar to fiat loans. And if you charge no interest, how do you cover the cases of default? Also if the collateral is crypto, that's way more risky than real estate for the lender.
Meanwhile we have community owned lenders. They're called credit unions. It's not even that hard to join their boards.
If something seems to be too good to be true, it prolly is.
It cuts out the middle man - that middle man needs profit, they will always be more expensive. Now the difference, which is very valid, is that bankers can know you and evaluate you and give you a loan *without needing collateral*, which is something defi hasn't really touched as far as I know. It's obviously way too risky now, and possibly forever no matter how common crypto becomes.
> Also if the collateral is crypto, that's way more risky than real estate for the lender.
Not really, the way it's handled now is that if the value of the collateral starts to drop, the lender warns them to top up or be liquidated, and then liquidates before the crypto is worth less than the loan. It's like getting liquidated for margin calls.
> If something seems to be too good to be true, it prolly is.
It doesn't seem too good to be true. It seems exactly as good as it ought to be.
If there's no profit for the middle-man, then all these VCs throwing money at DeFi are gonna be rather disappointed, dontcha think?
And you're telling me that as a lender I have to warn or monitor and then liquidate my borrowers? I prefer to delegate such work, hence why I invest in great capital allocators.
Bonds are disintermediated capital from the lenders perspective.
Over 30% of businesses accept bitcoin according to a survey of 505 businesses by Zogby. It wasa rubbish,tiny, survey and I don't believe it to be representative whatsoever.
I call bullshit to your lack of sources.
* [36% of small/medium businesses accept bitcoin](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200115005482/en/HSB-Survey-Finds-One-Third-Small-Businesses-Accept)
* [Borrow with Celsius, or any of the other dozens of loaners.](https://celsius.network/borrow-dollars-using-crypto-as-collateral)
* [Deeds on-chain](https://www.finder.com/first-real-estate-deed-recorded-only-on-blockchain)
* [EU central bank bonds on-chain](https://news.bitcoin.com/european-investment-bank-distributes-121-million-in-ethereum-based-digital-bonds/)
* [Ethereum single sign on](https://www.ecryptocurrency.co/2021/06/14/ethereum-single-sign-on-might-be-the-future-of-internet-app-log-in/)
* [Tokenized equities](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tokenized-equity.asp)
* [Tokenized ticketing](https://ioncore.org/index.php/tokenized-ticketing/)
Its utter codswallop to suggest that 36% of small businesses accept Bitcoin. The survey was of only 505 businesses and utterly unrepresentative.
Exactly!! The regular banking system in the US has never been implicated in anything criminal
Also the military, Christmas lights, private jets…don’t think her stance is really about the environment though
I have a feeling people like you would simply reject the results. Because it wouldn’t even be close.
mandate that they have to use carbonless power for every new "farm"?.
See how fast they change and also build a side business of green power farming ? ^(then if prices skyrocket nationalize !)
They can try, but that just means we keep having all the miners be in places without those rules, giving them a competitive advantage. The entire point of decentralized finance was to take government control and intervention away, and whether or not that's a good idea, it means they can't effectively stop this. They can either get on board or cede all influence over the development of the next financial system.
Then the price of renewable electricity hardware (like solar panels) would skyrocket like happened with GPUs.
A shame, but it would at least have the side benefit of stimulating investment.
I have a feeling this is more about maintaining the current monetary system than it is about saving the environment...
You're right. Shutting down all high-frequency computerized stocl and currency trading would save tons of power but Elizabeth Warren's not going to bring that up. . . Any more than she'd bring up the huge amounts of fossil fuels used by the US military abroad, or the role of petrodollar recycling and the Saudis, or the US plans to export LNG to Europe. . . These politicians are such two-faced frauds.
If you don't think Liz Warren wants to go after HFT you haven't been paying attention to Liz Warren.
Seriously. All these people see a government figure and then assume they know exactly what they think. So many people in this thread think Elizabeth Warren supports the current, massive US military budget, and avoiding that mistake takes about two seconds on her Wikipedia page.
Lol. Maybe she also wants to go after the NSA which uses massive amounts of power (Fort Ogden UT I think plus elsewhere) to store every bit of data and communications generated by American citizens too? That's a huge power cow.
Wake up. The politicians are lying to you. Push comes to shove, Warren will align with the billionaire class, just like she did when she claimed Bernie Sanders was a sexist pig or whatever, while ignoring Joe Biden and Tara Reade.
I'm not a huge fan of Warren, but given that Bernie is probably not going to be running in 2024 due to his age, she's the next best thing. There isn't going to be a third party president, nor will there be a revolution. I'll make do with what we have to work with.
The next best thing? She's no different from Kamala Harris, and a guaranteed loser. You idiots need to stop believing what you read in the NYTimes and Washingon Post.
Saying Elizabeth Warren is the same as Kamala Harris is kind of like saying “I hate all women in positions of power because they confuse me”
Oh please, now we're flying the misogynst flag? There's many excellent women in politics, and have been in the past as well. But having female bits doesn't excuse politicians for being corrupt two-faced neoliberal con artists.
All I’m saying is that the only similarity between the two is that they have “female bits”
When did Elizabeth Warren ever fight to keep an innocent man in prison, like Harris did? You need to stop believing everything Jimmy Dore and Brianna Joy Grey tweet.
Come on - the only reason Elizabeth Warren stayed in the race after Obama instructed all the other apparatchiks to drop out was to draw progressive votes away from Bernie Sander so that Joe "The Senator from MBNA" Biden would have a better chance of winning. Despite her rhetoric, she's a billionaire class tool and always will be. A fucking Republican until age 40 wasn't she?
DNC PR monkeys are the worst.
^ This is your brain on left wing conspiracy theories.
Ding! What do we have for her Johnny??
You can tell because Bitcoin is less than 1% of energy use, and they refuse to bring up any meaningful proposals to target industry, transportation, or any of the other huge chunks of pollution that we actually need to stop in order to save ourselves.
Shhh that doesn’t fit their narrative
Blame the crypto, not the fact that you have a poor renewable energy infrastructure to allow the system to run on....... a classic political move, make an example out of something that is not actually the real problem so as to distract the masses.
I'm all for this. Can we begin a crackdown of environmentally wasteful subreddits next tho?
All the efficiency gains made by renewable energy could be wiped out if a bunch of BTC advocates fulfill their dreams of widespread adoption.
Is it more wasteful than minting pennies?
Lol. Right. I would agree that it’s best to transition to PoS, but suggesting a crackdown on crypto is outlandish and exactly what I would expect.
I agree, Christmas lights and Bitcoin should go.
Depends what type of Christmas lights you're talking about.
The ones on trees are very low power consumption LEDs. The houses that just put up one string on their gutters, don't use much either (the newer the lights, the less power).
However, if you're talking about the houses that have enough lights to brighten the whole street... it's a different story. I can say that most of the people that use that many lights are often using LEDs, which are incredibly low power. And they also set them up and program them along side a radio station so the lights sync up to the music. In those cases, most houses only have that system turned on over a span of a few hours each night. As a comparison, think about how much power consumption goes into live concerts.. then realize that this small light show the house has uses no where near as much power.
In other words, yes, technically christmas lights are a superfluous use of electricity, but comparing them to bitcoin (or pretty much anything else that uses electricity) is dumb. It muddies the already muddy realm of "What causes climate change?" and where we should be focusing time, policy, and resources.
> The ones on trees are very low power consumption LEDs.
You're not factoring in the carbon cost of creating them, and how many people use them as a disposable item and buy more every year. The manufacturing cost is much worse than the electricity cost, and even more so for more complex LEDs.
Anyone who gets new lights every year is probably rich enough that the least of your worries should be a string of lights every year. Maybe the fancy 15 mpg car they probably drive every day or the thousands of single use plastics I’m sure they use every month are a better thing to get anxious about.
Christmas lights aren't nearly expensive enough to be reserved for the rich, you can get boxes for like 5$ each.
But yes I agree, there are much much more significant sources of pollution, and that tackling Christmas light waste is basically pointless because of them. We should focus our effort on those things.
why christmas lights? is their energy consumption really that bad?
Please do. Bitcoin alone uses a huge amount of power, 110Twh, .5% of global energy. Some bitcoin "experts" will say that the global banking system uses more power, which is true. But also BILLIONS more people uses banks. But Bitcoin alone will not solve the climate crisis. There is still a lot more that needs to be done
Cardano and stellar lumens are really eco friendly alternatives.
> But Bitcoin alone will not solve the climate crisis. There is still a lot more that needs to be done
Exactly why it's pointless to talk about. Say we somehow ban bitcoin entirely, we have reduced electricity usage by 0.5%.. So what..? It just doesn't matter, it's a rounding error. We need to target industry and transport, but they're not talking about that in any meaningful way - they want to ban bitcoin not for the environment, but to maintain control of the financial system.
0.5% absolutely dwarfs the amount of energy used by the Christmas lights that you so want to get rid of. You do realize that 1/200 of the world’s energy is enough to power every home in the US, right?
I don't want to get rid of Christmas lights - they're a rounding error. We need to focus on things that actually matter, that's my entire point.
What about animal agriculture, which is responsible for ocean dead zones, the largest in the Gulf of Mexico
That doesn't threaten the US-centric financial system, no need to worry about that.
Why is the response to things like this always: “What about agriculture? What about industry? What about excess electronics? What about the fossil fuel companies themselves? Those are all problems so why would you ever bring this up. Aaaa. Fight me,” instead of: “Wow, this is a factor that I should take into account while deciding for myself what things are worth the environmental impacts that they cause, because I understand that climate change is an incomprehensibly complex process which is affected by everything in unintended ways. Someday, hopefully, we will have purely sustainable energy, and then we can use power as carelessly as we want, but I’m glad I have this information to better understand energy conflicts until then, and to form my own opinions with.”
— Elizabeth. My dear.
We all know at this point your romantic hatred towards cryptos.
You sleep and dream how you win the battle and make the world fit your narrative.
The fact is, and ask any credible scientist, that crypto is the least concern at this stage. We are having far bigger and deeper issues.
If you, like many other humans beings, concern about climate I would suggest crackdown on fossil fuel industry, phone Brazil President and demand a permanent stop on deforestation, and the mass misinformation about climate crisis.
When these areas are “fixed” if it means anything, then you will see that dirty cryptos vanish without any need of doing crackdowns. Because at that point humans will be wiser than today.
Until then, hopium and useless waste of energy concentrating on what is regarded the least polluting substance.
At this point, countries need to join together and just decide one environmentally friendly product that Brazil can create (whatever it is). Hell, tech support, whatever. And then hand-hold by paying for that transition so that country actually can adjust into a new world. Just saying "stop all your exports" doesn't help them. They need another product.
I mean, if cocain wasn't illegal
I mean we could also just drone strike all logging equipment they try to move into the jungle. There are multiple ways to skin this cat.
How does that teach them a new trade or item to export as a country? Beef is their main export and reliance for GDP. Without some sort of product, how do they financially support themselves as a country? And thus, what product do you WANT them to make now? That's the core problem.
It doesn't, it's terrible for Brazil. The core of the issue is that the way Brazil is working as part of the global economy now is a major contributor to an existential risk to us all, so we can either let them continue and risk everyone, or make them stop and risk them. Cruelly and emotionlessly, bad for a few people is less bad than bad for everyone.
Brazil could maybe find a sustainable place in the global economy, but they can't do it overnight, they can't do it in time to matter - the climate crisis clock is ticking vary rapidly toward 'society collapsing cataclysm'. so all of the feel good "we can save the planet without hurting anyone in the process" propaganda is absurd, we can't. If we want to save anyone, we have to hurt someone, probably everyone to some extent.
Obviously nobody is willing to drone strike Brazil, it's a moral and PR disaster. Nobody can claim that it's just or fair, nobody will take that kind of radical action, nobody will take any kind of action that hurts people or lowers our standard of living. So we're almost certainly not going to do anything that matters and just keep on with business as usual until the climate crisis disrupts so much that there is no more global coordinated society.
Look, I get it, you're afraid we'll all die in 10 years. But, that's not really the case. If we do nothing at all, then a few countries will go underwater, (Japan, Philipines, Korea, parts of Australia, parts of the US, especially Florida; anything near sea level right now), and more fires, and more other issues, and the migration of those people will probably cause wars, etc.
But, Brazil has a population of 214 million... [https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/brazil-population/](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/brazil-population/)
So, it's not a small country. It clearly needs a way to feed and support 214 million people. If you can think of a way to do that, great. But that's the problem there and many other countries, too. Why should China remove hundreds of coal plants? What will it use instead? Why should India switch to electric vehicles or buses right now, it's still installing toilets and septic lines at the moment? Why should any county take on this debt? It's a lot of countries each fighting a fight where they think none of them can afford to change. So, pretty big mental hurdle for the whole world right now.
I'm pretty pessimistic, but even I'm not doomer enough to think 10 years is the timeline. But within 10 years will likely have locked in the warming (if we haven't already) that will decide how bad the rest of the century gets.
Underwater isn't really the problem, it's going to be heat-induced crop failure that causes mass famine.
> Why should China remove hundreds of coal plants? What will it use instead? Why should India switch to electric vehicles or buses right now, it's still installing toilets and septic lines at the moment? Why should any county take on this debt?
Exactly the problem - anything good for all of us, is worse for some of us. By concerned with the majority, the minority loses a competitive advantage.
So nobody will do anything. We'll keep doing business as usual until we are literally unable to continue.
Last time I checked, Warren has no control over Bolsonaro, nor does he have any reason to listen to her.
Ah, yes, let’s once again avoid any negativity towards cryptocurrency by pretending that Warren hasn’t already spent years fighting the fossil fuel industry and deforestation. We’ll also pretend that she has never spoken to a credible scientist, and that her lauded plan for environmental improvements had she become president was actually random words that credible people said was aggressive and well-planned as a joke. Even if it’s dumb, this stuff is disappointing, considering this is supposed to be an environmental sub.
Kill bitcoin. It is useless. Use the other more efficient currencies
It's amusing to see how many so-called environmentalists here are showing how much more concerned they are about their bit-coin wallets than the environment.
Liz’s struggle for significance
She says that while taking private jets around the country.
And while supporting the bloated military industrial complex, which is emitting like 15% of the United States pollution? Shady. All of them. Every single politician is shady af.
It's because she doesn't care about Bitcoin's environmental impact, she just wants to get rid of it because it's a threat to the US-centric financial system.
Lack of imagination and vision, probably coupled with a healthy dose of "campaign contributions".
How about this instead. Push hard for the decentralized grid to help power the decentralized banking system and move money back down to us peasants.
Get solar and wind power up and running at peoples houses and apartments, and when they've got an excess of energy, kick on the bitcoin miner in the basement.
During the winter, it is a double win because you're now also pumping that heat through the house or apartment building.
Anything and everything coming out of the US government and its mouthpieces is for the benefit of the rich. Never forget, there were solar panels on the White House when Reagan took over, and he purposely shifted us back to oil by cutting solar subsidies. Power generation is a problem that was solved 40 years ago, and threw away to make more rich people yacht money.
If it had been allowed to finish its gestation, we wouldn't even care about bitcoin power consumption because every house would have their own power production, and their own little money printer.
Decentralization is the way.
And FWIW, I prefer some of the more energy effecient cryptos. But the hand wringing should really be directed at power production, not bitcoin.
Yah I dont get why so many people don't see that if the grid is entirely renewable than you can still mine without a very big carbon footprint. But no, God forbid she bring up overhauling the energy infrastructure
Even here in a sub aabout the environment it appears renewable energy adoption is beyond most people.
This has less to do with the environment and more about keeping the monetary status quo in place
This basically says to me that she’s heavily invested in something cash based that she could stand to lose a lot of money on, probably something to do with education reform. She had me tricked into thinking she was one that really cared about the people but I was wrong. She can take herself and her old white money right out the door.
Right? She doesn't give a dam about the environment, she's trying to make money
I like Elizabeth Warren for the most part but she really should stfu about crypto. She has a very narrow-minded view on its power consumption.
Since you're on an environmental sub, care to give an explanation of how crypto is less wasteful than the current fiat / digital system?
Oh great, a report from a bitcoin miner. Now do energy usage per transaction.
I think when you think about printing money, stocking atms, bank operations including the super computers used to take advantage of momentum trading, it’s not too hard to imagine. Either way this is a tiny part of the problem. Anything that would actually help would disrupt industry so she has landed on something she doesn’t understand.
You shouldn't imagine that because its a false equivalency. The fact that bitcoin mining even shows up on a chart comparing energy usage to the *entire* banking industry, the *entire* gold mining industry, and the entire system that allows cash payment is a joke.
Don't know why you're getting downvoted. Like anyone on this sub trusts the governments ability to fix things
People are talking about the systems which are actually used. When money launderers and ransomware switches to a proof-of-stake system you could compare the total costs but currently an inordinate amount of energy is pouring into systems which are designed to be consistently wasteful even at the minuscule volume levels they can achieve.
Technically, Warren is both right and wrong.
On the one hand, crypto is not consuming any more energy than other types of banking and currency management. On the other hand, there are people out there that believe that they can mine crypto FOREVER. Which is not possible because...physics! Laws of thermodynamics and shit.
On the side note. When will bitcoin mining end?
What microchip/semiconductor shortage?
**buys an entire warehouse full of GPUs**
Frustrating how massive companies can do insurmountable damage to the planet and nothing happens to them. I understand btc is am extremely harmful to the environment but it’s just ironic how something that has made wealth for the little guy is all of a sudden a big environmental risk. Honestly if this shit keeps up a class war will break out.
And yet the US blocks an international agreement to end coal power. Focus on the right priority ma'am
Really!??? Why don’t you crack down on lying about your Native American heritage.
Let build more megawatt bitcoin mining station.
People wanted her as president.