I’m paying to subsidise the fossil fuel industry, I care more about that, I’m just not outages about this.
[1]:https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...
So if it bothers you that much then stop using those products/services. Not possible? Then vote to change laws. Not possible? Revolution
I get that putting the onus on consumers isn't going to fix the problem, but pointing to a factory that pollutes because you buy their products and want their product cheaply is equally inane
Of course not, but they do actively make decisions based on profit over sustainability.
> So if it bothers you that much then stop using those products/services. Not possible? Then vote to change laws. Not possible? Revolution
One voter voting on an issue doesn't change anything. These kinds of arguments must be made to convince others to vote with you on the issue. The same could be said of a revolution: a one person revolt doesn't go anywhere, we need more folks to embrace the revolution.
There's also been a concerted effort by corporations over the past few decades to shift blame from corporations & manufacturers responsible for pollution onto the consumers, which makes arguments like these necessary (because otherwise the only argument on the market is that we consumers are just buying plastics to spite the environment, to be hyperbolic about it).
and that's what they're supposed to do. Make the most profits while abiding by the law. As consumers start caring more about sustainable supply chains so will producers. When their profits get hurt because consumers choose a more sustainable product, then you'll see change. As long as consumers don't care and just want the cheapest thing (which unfortunately has been the great majority of people for the past 100 years) the producers won't care either
As soon as principles are really tested, it's crickets.
People have large TVs, ACs, high-end gaming PCs, a ton of devices, huge cars, eat lots of meat, use air travel, and drown themselves in cheap packages from China.
All of this life-style is our natural birth right, and none of its should be banned or taxed. Also, it doesn't contribute to the climate problem at all. It's all Bitcoin's fault. Or, the "industry".
Agreed, but I'm not pointing at the factories. Consumers _can't_ lobby congress or control the media narrative. Factories don't lobby congress nor spin a media narrative designed to distract attention from those profiting off dumping the externalities of the business models onto the world.
I'm pointing at the corporations (the sum actions of their boards & C-suites taken as a single entity) that own the factories and reap the rewards. I'm pointing at the people that have effectively "won" capitalism and then took it way too far by changing the law and controlling the narrative to make sure they stay in power no matter the costs.
I hope there's some resolution that doesn't require a revolution, though I suspect we'll just do _nothing_... then it'll be a mega-clusterfuck the likes of which we can barely imagine... and maybe after the first 10M-100M deaths due to famine/heat/fires/storms we may figure out that we need to do something... and it'll be too late and/or that something will be another major war.
But before that western society gets to decide how to handle storms/crop failures/droughts driving the largest human mass-migration EVER (Central America => USA, Africa/Middle East => Europe) during a period when resources are constraining.
Meanwhile, bitcoin is used to produce... what? A speculative asset some people can invest/gamble on?
https://www.govtech.com/news/bitcoin-mining-in-upstate-new-y...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2021/07/06/bi...
bitcoin literally pushes for increased renewable energy production, which helped fighting climate change more than any political bickering did in the past half a century.
This hardly seems like an objective, reputable source whose claims should be accepted at face value.
You should never take any claim at face value, but it's quite lazy to dismiss their data without backing it up.
No, it isn't. Per the website:
> The mandate of the Bitcoin Mining Council is to promote transparency, share best practices, and educate the public on the benefits of Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining.
So group that says it exists to promote Bitcoin mining and educate the public on the supposed benefits of Bitcoin mining publishes a study claiming that Bitcoin mining is super sustainable at a time when one of the biggest criticisms of Bitcoin is its energy use. Shocking!
> You should never take any claim at face value, but it's quite lazy to dismiss their data without backing it up.
It's the other way around. Groups making claims are responsible for backing them up, and there's arguably a higher standard for special interest groups who are conflicted and make claims that just happen to support their interests. Claims like Bitcoin is "one of the most sustainable industries globally" and "the network remains as strong as ever, it simply shrugs off adversity and moves forward".
Based on the press release and YouTube slides, this survey relied on self-reported data from parties who volunteered to answer 3 questions, with no independent verification that any of them responded accurately or truthfully. The responses (supposedly) cover (only) "32 percent of the current global Bitcoin network".
The group doesn't exist to promote Bitcoin mining as if to encourage more companies to start mining. The group is there to explain why Bitcoin uses so much energy, encourages miners to give insights into this (which is sorely lacking, everybody is largely guessing right now) and shares best practices between miners to go for sustainable energy, and even better: stranded surplus sustainable energy, such as flaring.
Nowhere do their reports say they are "super sustainable", it's you fabricating these lazy labels.
Whilst mainstream media focuses on some rogue abandoned coal factory mining Bitcoin, in reality the conversion towards renewables for Bitcoin mining is moving ahead at a spectacular pace.
> Based on this data it is estimated that the global mining industry’s sustainable electricity mix had grown to approximately 56 percent, during Q2 2021, making it one of the most sustainable industries globally.
> “Despite China shutting down over 60 percent of the global Bitcoin network, the Bitcoin network experienced zero downtime, no bailouts, has registered no bankruptcies and simply adapted by redeploying its infrastructure into regions that have greater freedoms,” Mr. Feinstein said. “The network remains as strong as ever, it simply shrugs off adversity and moves forward.”
Accusing me of "fabricating" what anyone can verify for themselves in the link on the Bitcoin Mining Council website linked to above is absurd.
You fabricated the term "super sustainable", which is claimed nowhere. The claim instead refers to the relatively high percentage of renewables compared to several other industries, whom often score in the 10-20% renewables range only. As to whether 56% is accurate, I don't know. Yet if you don't know, you can't be confident in it being wrong. You simply don't know.
The second quote isn't even a claim, it's what factually has happened. China shut down almost all Bitcoin mining overnight yet it did nothing to Bitcoin. The network self heals by means of a difficulty adjustment and miners moving elsewhere. A super power shut down the entire thing and months later the hash rate is right back where it was. That's extreme resiliency.
And this, in a nutshell, is my entire point: the person making a claim is responsible for establishing its validity. A person questioning its validity isn't. If I claimed that 75% of all HN posters were on the autism spectrum, it would be my responsibility to support my claim, not your responsibility to prove that it's wrong.
Claims made by an interest group that align to the interests of the interest group deserve extra scrutiny, especially when those claims are based on "data" that is self-reported by members of the group with no independent substantiation. It is therefore entirely reasonable to not accept these claims at face value, which gets us back to my purpose in responding to the other poster: the 56% figure is not a credible one.