The digging of cryptocurrencies is poisoning our communities, says the US representative

The digging of cryptocurrencies is poisoning our communities, says the US representative

The rhetoric that splits crypto critics and advocates was sparked by dueling letters to the US environmental protection authority (EPA) that put crypto mining into the spotlight.

On the one hand, 23 democratic congressions have signed a devastating contract TALD the mining industry on the environment and the community.

Your letter, which was submitted last month by representative Jared Huffman (D-CA), asked the EPA to ensure that crypto mining companies in the USA comply with the environmental regulations, especially the Clean Air and Water Act.

Huffman said that the reopening of gas and coal-fired power plants such as Greenidge in the state of New York and the Hardin facility in Montana undergrow "our struggle to combat the climate crisis".

"While some plants claim to be 'clean' by creating energy from coal waste, these coal -fired power plants still emit dangerous air pollutants and lead toxic pollutants into our waters," wrote Huffman. "The digging of cryptocurrencies is poisoning our communities."

It sounds dramatic, but this "poisoning" does not only refer to the potentially oversized greenhouse gas emissions of crypto mining companies. Residents of the entire USA ("From New York, Tennessee to Georgia") have complained about it noise pollution tied to new Bitcoin-mining systems that indicate hundreds of specially built rigs that can be very loud.

Another classic crypto criticism by Huffman was the supposed problem of proof-of-work (POWs) with electronic waste (e-water). The two most popular cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin and Ether, are broken down with Pow, which is heavily dependent on electricity used to distribute new cryptocurrency and process transactions.

It was already recommended that mining rigs last only 1.29 years due to intentional overuse. This means that the Bitcoin industry produces 30,700 tons of electronic waste every year (roughly as much as the small IT devices that are disposed of by the Netherlands), Huffman told the EPA, citing research results of the controversial personality, Alex de Vries.

de Vries previously worked as a data scientist for the Dutch central bank with a focus on financial management crime. He now runs a website Digiconomist, who modeled the ecological sustainability of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and ether.

"The industry must be held accountable for this waste and prevented them from causing them," wrote Huffman.

mining energy mix is a diversion maneuver, says the activist

In Huffman's letter it says that Bitcoin produces similar CO2 emissions every year like Greece. (Proponents deny this statistics, citing incomplete retroactive estimates of Bitcoin's energy consumption.)

And so the Holy Grail seems to be an industry for both crypto critics and supporters that reinforce robust energy networks that are operated with renewable energies. After all, Bitcoin can consume a lot of energy (and even more in the future if the prices continue to rise), but if the consumed electricity is renewable, this should reduce the environmental concerns.

The Bitcoin industry reacted at the beginning of this week with Your own letter sent via the Bitcoin Mining Council, a group led by MicroStrategy CEO and Famous Bitcoin bull Michael Saylor. It was

The group has set itself the task of pursuing the energy mix used by industry. It is the latest test report published in April Half of Bitcoin's hashrate, and found that the network was fed by almost 60 % of sustainable energy sources - compared to 37 % in the first quarter of 2021.

Faber emphasized the recent warnings of the United Nations Committee for Climate Changes (IPCC), which expressly described the increasing electricity consumption of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin as a "growing concern".

The latest reduction in the climate change of the IPCC test report admitted that there was "uncertainty" with regard to the exact CO2 footprint A that the crypto industry could reduce damage caused by decarbonization.

Nevertheless, Faber found that the strong increase in crypto power consumption exceeds other industries far from it and differs from more traditional data centers. He described the climate effect of electricity producers as dividing maneuvers; The growing demand for electricity due to digital currencies that rely on Pow gives occasion for concern at EEC, Greenpeace and the IPCC.

"If you look at the electricity demand from data centers, the IEA found that the demand is stagnating, although internet traffic and workload of data centers have increased significantly," said Faber.

other data transmission networks such as mobile communications would even be more energy -efficient, he explained. It is the exponential increase in electricity consumption that must be contained, the energy mix that drives this consumption is only one detail at this point.

"The really important point is the trend-20 times the increase in just five years-especially in contrast to other industries," said Faber.

While this feeling has a certain weight, especially among climate activists, the steps of the Bitcoin industry should not be underestimated for decarbonization or in other ways "green".

Numerous mining companies all over the world have promised to become climate -neutral, with some great efforts to make sure that they do not use carbon -powered energy networks. Their dependence on fossil fuels could harm long -term if regulations should be imposed that could mess up the power supply, said mining expert Alejandro de la Torre. Uzbekistan recently went on to inspire Miner to build their own solar modules by being charged twice to connect them to the standard network.

In any case, there is a problem: Faber does not believe the claims of the Bitcoin. "I think that a government agency or a trustworthy third party is given the task of measuring, reporting and checking these claims, they are simply," he said.

FABER said there were many examples of where the government concerns laws or other funds. An example he called was the release of toxic chemicals into the environment by industry - every year, the manufacturers of the EPA must report quantities of toxic chemicals that are released into the environment.

Is it realistic for the Bitcoin industry to accept a interference of the US government in your way of working? De la Torre replied that the Texas power grid Ercot has already published data on the energy mix that enable third parties to check energy mixes. He said that more options for checking mixtures to power the power of energy would be a good cause.

Carter was clearer: "Completely ridiculous and unrealistic and an insane standard compared to any other industry," said Carter. "Buying electricity from the network and carrying out calculations is not exactly comparable to the production of toxic chemicals."

But if the activists prevail, it could very well be in the eyes of the supervisory authorities.

. .

The contribution "Cryptocurrency mining is poisoned by our communities," says the US representative, is not a financial advice.