November 26, 2022

ESG Organizations Send Letter To Congress About PoW Mining, Bitcoin Responds

6 min read

Will the ESG FUD ever stop? As a Congressional subcommittee prepares to take a great look at Proof-Of-Work mining, “more than 70” nationwide, worldwide, state and regional companies composed a letter to the “Congressional management.” In it, they utilize old and unreliable information to get their point throughout. They totally overlook all of 2021’s research and progress on the matter, due to the fact that it would invalidate their argument.

The concern is, will Congress buy their improperly looked into, alarmist letter? The ESG FUD struck PoW mining like a lots of bricks in 2021. It may be based on a poor understanding of the topic at hand, however the general public in basic absolutely purchased it. And they price estimate the phony numbers that their authorities developed left and ideal on social networks.

Related Reading|Despite Crackdown, Bitcoin Mining Is Still Alive And Well In China

Likewise, the whole argument entirely disregards Bitcoin’s primary virtue. The orange coin provides a structure and tools for the world’s shift to a disinflationary system. Paraphrasing “The Price Of Tomorrow’s” author Jeff Booth, in the inflationary system that we reside in, there’s a clear reward for intake. If your cash’s acquiring power declines by the minute, everybody will logically buy, spend, and consume whatever in sight. That is the genuine monster that the planet’s facing. And Bitcoin repairs it.

In any case, Bitcoin’s resident ESG FUD specialist, Nic Carter, took it upon himself to respond to the ESG companies that sent false information to Congress. Let’s see how each part did.

The ESG Organizations Make Their Point, Nic Carter Counterpoints

The ESG companies come out swinging from the intro on:

” We, the more than 70 environment, financial, racial justice, company and local companies, compose to you today to advise Congress to take actions to mitigate the considerable contribution parts of the cryptocurrency markets are making to climate modification and the resulting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, ecological, and climate justice affects it will have.”

And their accuracies start from the outset, also:

” In 2018, researchers composing in Nature alerted that Bitcoin’s growth alone might singlehandedly push international emissions above 2 degrees Celsius within less than 3 years.”

Those numbers are outrageous. The research study presumes a progression relative to the variety of users of the network, which’s simply not how Bitcoin works. Even if the whole world embraced the Bitcoin requirement, the network would still produce one block every 10 minutes. Energy usage is not directly related to the number of users.

What did Nic Carter respond? That the claim is “false, based on an exposed paper with an entirely erroneous model of bitcoin.”

2. bitcoin'' s energy consumption will ' only worsen with time'

' more than likely will trail off with time, after peaking in the next years (see for in fact rigorous projections)

—– nic carter (@nic__carter) January 6, 2022

Right after that, the ESG organizations even toss Ethereum under the bus:

” The Digiconomist’s Ethereum Energy Consumption Index approximates that the Ethereum blockchain will consume 71 terawatt-hours this year, nearly the like the energy usage of Colombia.”

Since the letter has to do with PoW mining, it makes good sense. The Ethereum community seems to have actually entirely overlooked the letter, a minimum of over at Twitter.

BTC rate chart for 01/07/2021 on Bitstamp|Source: BTC/USD on
Bitcoin Incentivizes Green Energy Infrastructure

The ESG companies continue their poorly-researched attack with:

” The GHG emissions from this outrageous and unneeded energy usage is staggering.”

It’s not unneeded at all. In reality, PoW mining is definitely necessary for a decentralized, permissionless system. And the energy intake is straight proportional to the security of the network. Plus, it slow to the real life. Not to discuss the truth that Bitcoin actually incentivizes and funds green energy infrastructure.

Then, the ESG crowd accuses Bitcoin of “intensifying” the global chip scarcity:

” Increased demand for these devices are intensifying a worldwide lack of semiconductors. A bipartisan costs by Senators Maggie Hassan and Joni Ernst has actually called for a report on how cryptocurrency mining operations are impacting semiconductor supply chains.”

With ease, Nic Carter counterattacks with: “Bitcoin miners are not tier 1 customers, they do not take on Apple/Qualcomm/NVIDIA for space; the shortage is due to money printing and the need shock. See section on semis here.”

5. Atlas/ greenidge increased power prices in NY.

The Atlas mine revived online a fallow coal plant (transformed to natgas) which now supplies energy to the grid (in addition to mining). That'' s energy provided to the grid which wasn'' t being produced ahead of time

—– nic carter (@nic__carter) January 6, 2022

Texas Doesn’t Know What Its Doing, The ESG Crowd Does

Then, the ESG scientists make wild, unbacked presumptions about Texas power:

” Following a crackdown on cryptocurrency miners in China, numerous miners are moving to Texas, due to its deregulated grid, removing the power that Texans need.”

This completely neglects the truth that the state of Texas went to excellent lengths to bring in those miners. And that, unlike the ESG companies that signed the infamous letter, power companies in Texas frequently attend Bitcoin conferences. They are making an effort to comprehend the innovation and the opportunities it gives them. Also, as Carter puts it, “Majority of mining is in west texas where transmission bottlenecks indicate rates consistently go negative. Huge overcapacity and restricted demand for power outside of mining.”

Miners also participate in need response, suggesting they aren'' t online when the grid is overloaded. Their presence significantly improves economics for renewables and does not take on households during deficiency events.

—– nic carter (@nic__carter) January 6, 2022

The state of Texas knows what it’s doing, they see Bitcoin’s future is bright. These ESG companies believe they know better, though:

” Adding more energy-guzzling crypto mining operations to Texas could exacerbate the sorts of blackouts the state currently saw throughout the severe cold in February– interruptions that reporting reveals hit communities of color the hardest.”

Wow, playing the race card there. So low. And unrelated. Anyway, responding to the claim that miners “might exacerbate” the February blackouts, Carter states. “Miners were/ would have been offline during this time, as we demonstrate here. They likewise help minimize ‘‘ black start’ concerns through primary frequency action.”

9. Fortress mining with coal waste is bad (implied)

The coal waste was going to oxidize naturally. It was going to combust anyway. This is a reward to tidy up a nasty site leeching into groundwater etc. Neutral from a CO2 perspective and ++ from an ecology view

—– nic carter (@nic__carter) January 6, 2022

3 Other Prominent Bitcoiners’ Response

Are these direct reactions to the ESG companies’ letter? It’s not clear, but the authors released them in the exact same timeframe. The first one refers to SHA256, the set of cryptographic hash functions that Bitcoin uses. Nunchuk founder Hugo Nguyen said, “Once you understand that SHA256 is close to being 100% efficient at what it does, you ‘d stop calling it a “waste”. In fact, 100% effectiveness is the exact reverse of “waste”. There’s absolutely nothing else like it.”

As soon as you comprehend that SHA256 is close to being 100% efficient at what it does, you ‘d stop calling it a “waste”. In fact, 100% efficiency is the exact opposite of “waste”. There’s nothing else like it.

—– Hugo Nguyen (@hugohanoi) January 7, 2022

For his part, Swan Bitcoin’s Brandon Quittem assaults the principle of energy consumption being inherently bad. “Energy consumption is straight correlated with GDP. Wish to help developing nations? Help them harness more energy. Surprisingly, Bitcoin serves as a free market subsidy for energy financial investment.”

3/ Energy usage is directly associated with GDP.

Wish to assist developing nations? Help them harness more energy.

Interestingly, Bitcoin acts as a free enterprise aid for energy investment.

Incentivizes establishing otherwise uneconomical energy sources.

—– Brandon Quittem (@Bquittem) January 6, 2022

And Kraken’s Dan Held specifies that “Bitcoin’s energy usage is not “wasteful.” Why? Due to the fact that “It is far more efficient than existing financial systems.” And we’re talking orders of magnitude, here. Not only that, “No one has the ethical authority to inform you what is an excellent or bad usage of energy (ex: watching the Kardashians).”

1/ Bitcoin’s energy usage is not “wasteful.”

– – It is a lot more effective than existing financial systems– – No one has the ethical authority to tell you what is a good or bad usage of energy (ex: seeing the Kardashians)

Let'' s debunk this FUD👇

— Dan Held (@danheld) January 6, 2022 Do you know how much energy American households use for their Christmas lights? As much as the entire Bitcoin network, that’s just how much.

Associated Reading|Is This The Reason China Banned Bitcoin Mining? Carvalho’s Mind Blowing Theory

Where is the letter to Congress opposing Christmas lights, ESG organizations?

Featured Image by Karsten Würth on Unsplash|Charts by TradingView