Comment by sph | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sph | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Why are we focusing so much on reducing energy usage, rather than making energy, especially green energy, cheaper and more accessible? No one is boiling the oceans to mint BTC.

Bitcoin's value (not only the monetary value of it) scales with global access to energy. So what? Why is that such a problem? What it is, is a convenient scapegoat for the anti-crypto mobs to complain about. Bitcoin is not stealing energy from anything, it is not making it more expensive nor it is the direct cause of global warming: a Bitcoin mined on solar is worth the same as a Bitcoin mined on fossil fuels. We are literally missing the forest for the trees, and to me, this topic is a populist slogan for tech-educated people that want another reason to have the big bad cryptocurrencies.

Global warming is a major threat to our society, and while the major culprits and those that stand to benefit from the status quo continue with impunity, we, the people, are fighting among ourselves on inconsequential topics like Bitcoin energy usage.

In the mid term not all energy will be produced green. So more energy usage means more CO2.

Putting a fair price on CO2 would solve the problem for bitcoin (and many others).

That sadly will never happen, unless the world somehow gets a unified government (imo).

Agreed, but how is that Bitcoin's problem? Is it Bitcoin's fault our politicians are so corrupt they do not want to put up taxes on carbon emissions and fossil fuels?

This is what I find annoying. If Bitcoin were to disappear tomorrow, we would still run on non-renewables, and pollute our soil and waters. Why isn't this the primary concern, and we look at a single industry downstream that is completely independent on how clean the energy it uses, and in fact, is more profitable with renewables as I mentioned in a sibling comment?

It is not dissimilar to the misplaced hope to reduce the catastrophic disaster of microplastics in our water stream by banning plastic straws. Or demonising meat consumption when it is such a drop in the ocean compared to all our energy and pollution problems, caused by transportation, heavy industries and corruption.

The only things people really care about these days is what fits easily in a Twitter post of fake outrage, without stopping to see the bigger picture.

You can have a carbon tax with a border adjustment. If goods are imported from a country without an equivalent (or stronger) carbon tax, then those goods would be subject to a fee at the border. The EU is considering is a system like this, which could be very impactful since they're the 2nd largest economy in the world.

If the US, the world's largest economy, also implemented such a system, then there would undoubtedly be a large global impact in reducing emissions. Creating the political will to do so is difficult of course. Citizens' Climate Lobby has been working on trying to pass a carbon fee with a border adjustment since 2007, though unfortunately with increasing political polarization it has been difficult. I wouldn't rule out the possibility though — political change can be very slow in the US, but CCL is clearly a group with extreme patience and a focused goal, but is willing to be pragmatic and advocate for any improvements as opposed to taking nothing. Admittedly I haven't volunteered for them in a quite some time, but in the past (at least at where I was at the time), the people I worked with seemed level headed and goal oriented — they may not have always personally liked the Representatives or staff that they were meeting, but they kept personal opinions to themselves and were laser focused on trying to convince them of joining the Climate Solutions Caucus and sponsoring a carbon fee. Perhaps the EU looking to implement one with a border fee adjustment may be the push the US needs to make it happen here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com