One of the most common criticisms towards Bitcoin and many other cryptocurrencies is, as you already know, that it is not a particularly environmentally friendly technology. As the blockchains grow in size and the computing capacity to manage them and to mine cryptocurrencies increases, the electricity consumption necessary for these operations increases substantially.
This has given rise to more efficient alternatives are sought, in relation to the cost-consumption of electricity and resources associated with cryptocurrencies, and there are already some initiatives where test systems have less of an impact in this regard. However, in those cases we are talking about new cryptocurrencies, or others that have already had this type of change on their agenda for a long time. This is not the case with Bitcoin, which by its nature seems doomed to be more demanding in this regard every day, until a time comes when, if this increase is maintained, it becomes unsustainable.
One way to try to mitigate the impact of Bitcoin at this point is, of course, to ensure that the vast majority of the electricity consumed for mining operations originates from non-polluting sources, so that even with such high consumption, it does not end up become a major cause of pollution. And although in recent times we have heard of some initiatives in this regard, It doesn’t seem that the situation has improved.
Rather, according to a study published in Joule, the trend would be just the opposite.with a very sharp decline in the amount of “green” energy used around Bitcoin. And although more than one will be surprised, the main reason for this is found in the policies carried out by China to end Bitcoin mining in some of the country’s regions, more specifically in those where electricity is cheaper. .
As we told you at the time, the mining of Bitcoin was endangering the CO2 emission targets set by the Asian giant, since the macro-farms that proliferated in the country depleted the production of hydroelectric facilities, forcing electric power operators to resort to other sources, mainly coal, to sustain the volume of demand in these regions. In other words, Bitcoin mining in China was sustained, in a significant way, on electricity of “green” origin.
However, with the de facto expulsion of Bitcoin farms from China, its makers have looked to other regions of the world where the price of electricity they need for the farms keeps these facilities profitable, not to mention of places where their arrival is encouraged with tax exemptions and similar measures. A diaspora that has had destinations as antagonistic as the United States and Kazakhstan.
Specifically, the transfer of Bitcoin mining farms from China to the United States, encouraged by states like Kentucky that have offered tax breaks, has caused an increase in the consumption of electricity whose origin is not renewable sources, but polluting ones, mainly coal. And the same happens with Kazakhstan, with quite cheap electricity, but which is sustained in a significant way by coal.
Thus, according to this study, the impact of the relocation of Bitcoin farms from China would have caused a more than substantial drop, since of the 41.6% of green energy used up to that moment, fell to 25.1%. A drop of more than 15 points that, based on the researchers’ calculations, indicates that currently the emissions generated by Bitcoin exceed those of Greece, with 65.4 megatons of carbon dioxide per year of Bitcoin vs. Greece’s 56.6 Megatons of Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2019
Another very interesting comparison is that of the carbon footprint generated by each transaction with Bitcoin, and that the study puts at about 669 kilograms of carbon dioxidean amount comparable to that of a round-trip transoceanic flight, for example between London and New York, whose footprint is estimated at about 670 kilos per passenger.
