By Nathan Cooper & Michael Dizon*
Since its debut in 2009, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have seen explosive growth and some dramatic downturns.
Cryptocurrencies now inhabit an increasingly prominent niche in the global financial landscape, offering “pastime” opportunities for young investors, channelling donations to Ukraine’s war effort or simply providing cheaper and faster alternatives to mainstream banking.
In Aotearoa New Zealand, the Reserve Bank recently decided to investigate crypto as part of a wider conversation about how New Zealanders will pay and save in the future.
So far, crypto has benefited from light regulation in New Zealand, but it’s essential we have a clear picture of all pros and cons, including the risk of criminal behaviour and climate change impacts.
Cryptocurrencies offer a variety of investment and transaction benefits, but concerns about dangers are also growing. Crypto’s volatile track record presents significant risk to investors (alongside significant reward) and the relative anonymity of Bitcoin, Ethereum and others is proving attractive to organised crime, money laundering and tax evasion.
To date, crypto has largely avoided the traditional forms of financial regulation banks face and it has capitalised on its ability to eschew territorial borders, being everywhere and nowhere at once.
As calls for effective regulation get louder and major markets in the US, EU and Asia seek to subject crypto to greater oversight, it is particularly important to highlight crypto’s growing but often hidden environmental impact.
Bitcoin uses more energy than most countries
How do companies with only virtual assets contribute to environmental damage? The answer is data mining.
Cryptocurrencies and assets use blockchain technology. In essence, transactions are verified and recorded on a blockchain, a public digital ledger that contains information about all transactions.
Blockchain technology ensures the integrity of crypto transactions, but it does so by using huge amounts of electricity. Bitcoin’s annual electricity consumption is more than three times that of New Zealand. This is due to blockchain’s distributed nature and use of cryptography and complex processing, which require considerable computational power.
Verifying transactions, or mining, is so energy intensive it has caused concerns about the resilience of some countries’ electricity supply. Earlier this year, Kazakhstan cut off crypto miners because of the country’s energy crisis.
When the electricity used by crypto comes from fossil fuels, the connection to climate change becomes clearer. Recent developments in the US are setting a worrying trend. Crypto’s colossal energy needs may be met by electricity from coal-fired power stations, at a time when the energy sector should pivot towards renewables.
In Kentucky, a new crypto “blockchain farm” is being built close to four coal-fired power plants, for easy energy supply. Meanwhile, another coal-fired power station in Montana has been brought back from the brink of closure after agreeing to act as the sole electricity supplier to a Bitcoin mining company, Marathon, adding hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Cryptocurrencies and climate change
The need to act decisively on climate change has never been more urgent. Last year, New Zealand announced its new Nationally Determined Contribution to cut emissions by 50% on 2005 levels by 2030 as part of collective efforts to limit global temperature rise to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels.
This is an improvement on the previous pledge, but Climate Action Tracker still rates New Zealand’s overall contribution to climate change mitigation as “highly insufficient”.
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released last month, details the impacts of overshooting the 1.5℃ target. For Australasia, these include increased heat-related deaths and disease for people and wildlife, loss of livelihoods and a drop in income from agriculture and loss of low-lying coastal areas as a result of rising sea levels. Insufficient action on climate change now will have serious consequences, including close to home.
According to a recent survey, most New Zealanders accept the need to take action to combat climate change. But all too often people’s lifestyle decisions still seem disconnected from their environmental impacts. Confusion remains around what people can meaningfully do to make positive change.
Regarding crypto, to make informed and responsible choices, New Zealanders need a clear picture of how our consumer and investment decisions affect the planet. Public and private sectors should explore more environmentally friendly blockchain technology based on “proof-of-stake” which uses less energy because of lower processing requirements.
Indeed, the European Parliament considered banning the more energy-hungry “proof-of-work” mechanism Bitcoin and other popular cryptocurrencies use. While it backed off the proposal, cryptocurrencies will likely face further scrutiny as the EU tries to tackle the climate crisis.
Aotearoa also needs a future-facing regulatory framework to limit the use of energy-hungry encryption and support a safer and more sustainable model for consumers and the planet.
* Nathan Cooper is Associate Professor of Law at the University of Waikato, and Michael Dizon, is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Waikat. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
54 Comments
So total consumption for banks during a year only on those three metrics is around (I am rounding) 26Twh on servers, 58Twh on branches and 13Twh on ATMs for a total of close to a 100 Twh a year.
According to the article that trigger this discussion, Bitcoin annual Twh consumption is 28.67 , so currently more than 3 times more efficient than a very conservative calculation of the cost of the global banking system. Of course you will argue that the banking systems does more than handling a currency which is true but the difference is large enough that I do not think is that relevant. Even if only 30% of banks electricity consumption was the comparable part to Bitcoin, that will still make Bitcoin more efficient.
https://medium.com/hackernoon/the-bitcoin-vs-visa-electricity-consumpti…
What a silly comparison.
On one side 1 trillion USD of value which is used solely for speculation, not day to day transactions as is is not commonly accepted as payment.
On the other, an estimated 7 trillion USD of physical cash handling, and the settlement of 99.9% of the worlds transactions, managing the combined estimated wealth of the world - 5 quadrillion USD.
Have you tried doing your calculation on a per transaction basis?
You are ignoring scale though. So the efficiency of BTC is dramatically overstated. Banks are processing in the magnitude of >100k more daily transactions across the globe than BTC. So on a per transaction basis the banks win out hands down.
In its current state, for BTC to scale to that sort of volume would be catastrophic.
Silly?
BTC is layer one, and will never be used for day to day transactions. The whole point is BTC will replace banks!!!
Look up the lightening net work and get back to us?
Transactions for the Future
Instant Payments. Lightning-fast blockchain payments without worrying about block confirmation times. Security is enforced by blockchain smart-contracts without creating a on-blockchain transaction for individual payments. Payment speed measured in milliseconds to seconds.
Scalability. Capable of millions to billions of transactions per second across the network. Capacity blows away legacy payment rails by many orders of magnitude. Attaching payment per action/click is now possible without custodians.
Low Cost. By transacting and settling off-blockchain, the Lightning Network allows for exceptionally low fees, which allows for emerging use cases such as instant micropayments.
Cross Blockchains. Cross-chain atomic swaps can occur off-chain instantly with heterogeneous blockchain consensus rules. So long as the chains can support the same cryptographic hash function, it is possible to make transactions across blockchains without trust in 3rd party custodians.
Blockchain is a "proof" of ownership calculation. It is not a system in itself. For it to do what you want it will need to become a "system" and therefore inherit its own positives and negatives and likely prove no better/worse than the current system.
I mean for a start, as you have noted, for it to scale globally it needs to go off-chain. i.e. circumvent the very proof of ownership concept that underpins blockchain technology.
Technology being the critical word as well. Ultimately blockchain (and by construct BTC) is nothing but code in a PC. Granted it is not currently Govt controlled, but it is and likely always will be controlled and managed by humans, therefore it will have the exact same potential for issues, loopholes and abuse as the current system.
I mean, ask yourself does 1BTC really equal 1BTC? Because from what I can see it currently equals 100m Santoshis...
It's just silly to compare total banking footprint to total BTC footprint. The former provides banking services to billions, with trillions of transactions per year processed. BTC is a fringe pursuit for a tiny fraction of the population, handling what, 4 orders of magnitude fewer transactions? It's not even comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to whales.
The Bitcoin network consumes less than half the energy consumed by the banking or gold industries. Are we going to crack down on those?
Bitcoin fueling climate change is a myth.
FACT CHECK: Is Bitcoin mining environmentally unfriendly? | by Coinbase | The Coinbase Blog
NZ needs to establish a supportive regulatory environment for crypto or risk being left behind.
Earlier generations had the chance to get rich through property investment. The younger generation now has the opportunity to build wealth by investing in Bitcoin while it is still in its infancy.
Here's a macro investor's explanation for those of us still hung up on this misinfo. From Lyn Alden's last year
https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/
Lightning network - look into it. If Bitcoin is ever used for small transactions, it will be done on this incredibly efficient "layer two" network. But I'm not sure it will ever be used as a means of exchange for small transactions in this way. Why would you buy a coffee with Bitcoin instead of dollars when the value of the Bitcoin will very likely go up while the value of the dollar will very likely go down?
"Why would you buy a coffee with Bitcoin instead of dollars when the value of the Bitcoin will very likely go up while the value of the dollar will very likely go down?"
So Bitcoin will only ever be hoarded, and not spent, because it only ever goes up in value! Because in future more people will want to own it, because it only ever goes up in value? Sounds like a pyramid scheme to me.
Is gold a pyramid scheme? If I had $4 worth of gold and $4 cash, I'd definitely use the cash to buy my coffee if I had the choice. One is deflationary, the other is inflationary.
But if Bitcoin is ever used as a means of exchange for small transactions at scale, it will be on something like the Lightning Network.
And Bitcoin is "hodled", not "hoarded".
Energy costs are embedded in cryptocurrency transaction costs. More efficient cryptocurrencies will have lower transaction costs, ceteris paribus. However it's also true that if people are willing to shoulder higher transaction costs, for example for Bitcoin, it's because they value the transaction higher than those costs. The solution isn't so much to regulate this out of Bitcoin (impossible) or ban proof of work algorithms (laughably impossible) but rather to encourage people to take adopt other coins (but to be effective, these would have to have the same properties as Bitcoin, which they don't), or to encourage more and more countries to adopt something like an emissions trading scheme, so that carbon emissions are increasingly accounted for within Bitcoin transactions. This would really have the effect of tying Bitcoin miners to places where electricity is both cheap and green (hydroelectricity?), or perhaps where excess heat generated by mining can serve a secondary purpose, such as in heating water: displacing the energy that would otherwise be used only for heating water.
Absoutly everything you need to know that isnt completely bias FUD. From 2018 so Bitocins energy consumption is well over 50% renewable now.
I will add a multiple of further links below this for anyone who actually wants to learn how BItcoin is helping the transition to green energy, and it absolutly should be using more of the global energy consumption.
Great short summary of the energy debate
Use in illicit activity: 0.34% of transactions and dropping yearly
Lyn Alden is fricken amazing. Anythign she puts out is well worth taking the time to read.
Well I feel that for anyone who actually wants to engage in a fair debate now has the resources available :)
Example - I just tried to set up a business payment to Australia for USD $50 (they have a USD account). After entering Bank Codes, BSB codes, Swift codes it was eventually sent , not before ANZ clipped the ticket and Citibank on the other side clipped the ticket. Time spent about 30 minutes and I expect the payment to take 1-2 days to clear.
If sending BTC would takes around 1 minute (both parties) and cost 2-3 cents.
Energy comparison for both?
So you would use the lightning network. Instant transaction time and fees of less than a cent. And it is also final settlement and instatnly spendable by the other person with no risk of a cock up or charge back.
Bitcoin the network uses electricity to also secure the network, consider the energy expenditure as building a forcefield around the ledger that stops bad actors from attacking it. It also serves the purpose of approving transactions. This is why you cant do what the New York Times did and say that each transaction uses this much electricity...because it is also securing every single transaction that has happened in the past.
edit: I see from your comment you know your stuff so feel free to ignore me :P I basically assume most comments on Bitcoin on Interest are from people that have no idea and have given up trying to learn, hence why these days I just provide resources and dont really try to educate people. Just from my experience over the last 2+ years, if they actually want to learn then they can put in the PoW.
Don't have the problem myself there is something called PayPal, maybe you should get an account. All you do these days is put in their e-mail address into it and even the calculation for the currency is done transparently these days. I use it for any overseas transaction like $50.
Mmmhmm it def is a great tool, no denying it. Until the government or someone else who has power decides they dont like your transaction description, or what you are spending it on and BAM, your accounts are frozen. No more access to any of your money other than the cash in your pocket. Take Canada earlier this year for example.....
There are tax considerations with the BTC method. You'd need to determine the NZD cost of the amount of bitcoin you sold and the NZD value of the BTC sale (whether that be in exchange for cash or goods) You'd better setup good systems or you'll be spending lots of energy doing accounts.
Example from this morning about why Bitcoin is the perfect partner for renewable energy grids (Texas is leading the way currently:
https://twitter.com/nic__carter/status/1509232384801189897?s=20&t=KDzhO…
Better check your financial privilege. There are billions in the world who are unbanked. The legacy system utterly fails them. Changing from wasteful ‘bricks and mortar’ banks and financial institutions onto mobile devices will herald the digitisation of the financial system, and will be orders of magnitude more energy efficient, and accessible to EVERYONE, not just the currently privileged.
Yes, I am more concerned about third world fresh water access more than their bank transfer fees, as drinking polluted water seems like a worse problem to live with.
I am not concerned enough to do anything about either however. I guess I don't currently have a solution (that greatly benefits myself) to sell to others.
“…more than their bank transfer fees”
That’s the problem, your financially-privileged position assumes they even have access to a bank account. Most of these poor countries have double digit inflation, with no access to any financial services. If you have access to financial services, you can save. If you can save, you can advance you/your family out of poverty. You can buy clean water and food. Citizens paying less in remittance fees equals more money available to the economy. Increasing GDP enables the country to build better infrastructure, including water and sanitation.
Luckily it’s a peaceful revolution, with no violence. People can opt-in/out as they see fit.
I acknowledge that you have nothing to offer instead.
The 'unbanked' just use their phones for money transfers, easy.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/09/mobile-money-africa-prevalence-e…
Regardless of environmental impact, allowing crypto to become dominant would be the greatest act of class warfare in human history. It is concentrated in, and manipulated by, a tiny cabal. Yes, so is the fiat system! But crypto is like that, magnified. Allow it to succeed and we will be nothing but powerless meat, completely owned by the likes of Peter Thiel. More dangerous than the traditional far right and far left combined -- because it's posited as a financial novelty, rather than the inhuman libertarian extremist ideology that it is.
Yes, I don't like crypto. Yes, I understand how it works.
It is a fact that people are selling a fix for a certain problem (third world bank fees) with a solution that also if widely implemented, would hugely enrich themselves (bitcoin becoming the new world banking system would turn existing owners into billionaires).
My opinion is that they likely care more about the hugely enriching themselves part, than the third world bank fees part, as that is normal human behaviour.
Which part do you object to?
OK, you got me. I guess some bitcoin owners really are riteously irrational, not just greedy/fearful pyramid scheme salesmen.
The legal system and the banks don't care if you buy bitcoin or art or classic cars or property with your spare cash. Whoever sells you bitcoin will spend your cash for you, buying goods, paying tax, taking out mortgages.. Doesn't make a lick of difference.
If you really want to show them, maybe get into subsistence hunter gathering. Once everyone is into that, they will really have to take notice.
"Allowing" it to become dominant? i.e. by the voluntary consent of the people who hold and transact with Bitcoin? You'd rather we used the state's monopoly on violence to stop this happening, because right now there are some people who hold lots of Bitcoin? No one is proposing that we force people to use Bitcoin; that is antithetical to the philosophy of its proponents.
To the extent that it may be "allowed" to become dominant because people choose to use it would rather be evidence of its popularly-judged superiority to the current system.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.