1. the amount of renewable will increase which will mean that this will not count in 50 years while gas cars will still burn fuel.
2. the overall co2 production is relevant smaller with EVs. There is probably a high correliation to co2 vs. energy (otherwise it would be weird).
CO2 is plant food, and is a red herring to the energy discussion.
The EV components are primarily reusable.
A gas / fuel car will ALWAYS consume oil. If yo want to switch to greener energye transport systems like plant oil, you can do that, its just not very efficient in comparision to an EV car.
And if you really really ment co2 as 'plants will consume it' no they are not able to consume that excess co2. Otherwise this co2 graph wouldn't look how it looks now: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Adding EVs to the market seems to be a net negative for electricity use. Can you say the same for your imaginary coin machines?
While this is completely useless. Stopping crypto mining is an extremely low hanging fruit if we we are serious at all about climate change (yes some people might claim that miners might be using renewable energy in many cases but it still could used for something actually useful instead..)
Relative to the amount of consumed energy? Not, not at all... Bitcoin is extremely exceptionally very inefficient for what it is.
Keeping the network secure has the same value as you apply to the network. If you're a Bitcoin maximalist this is infinite. If you're absolutely opposed to it it's zero. For most people it's somewhere in between. We can't pressupose that the energy expenditure is valuable because it is functionally necessary to the network.
> So whose paying for all the energy exactly? How long until they’re bled dry?
This is sort of like saying, "if gambling isn't valuable, where is the money coming from?" It's an activity some people want to engage in, and in the interests of liberty and self determination they should be able to do so. But when it has negative externalities of a severity that can't be ignored, something has to give and it had to be curbed to the point we reach a tolerable balance.
To be frank, Bitcoin hasn't demonstrated that it has deeper value than being a speculative financial asset. We've got a lot of speculative financial assets, most of them don't cost 2% of our energy expenditure in environmental externality.
The energie consumed only keeps stuff ON the chain secure but we do not just use the chain.
You do not just give someone else a bitcoin without anything in return. As soon as anything ofchain is part of the equation, its no longer working. NO power consumption makes sure that you get whatever you bought with your bitcoin.
Its a lie.
And pls don't mention smart contracts, they are as shitty as everything else. It doesn't make sense to block capital for exchange as it only shifts the problem.
Crypto did not solve the 'trust' issue.