Mining bitcoin (BTC) takes a lot of energy. This fact is therefore one of the main counter-arguments of ‘Bitcoin haters’ who prefer to see the crypto go down, or switch to Proof of Stake (PoS) like Ethereum (ETH) did. But how big is the impact of BTC really? The Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance (CCAF) recently released a new report about this subject.
Bitcoin mining accounts for 0.1% of CO2 emissions
The researchers conclude in the report that bitcoin mining represents 0.1% of the total annual CO2 emissions. That amounts to 48.35 million tons of CO2 per year. It should be noted that this is an estimate.
This estimate is based on the locations where bitcoin miners are located. By then looking at the energy mix in the various regions, a global estimate can be made of the emissions. It can also be concluded from this that 37.6% of the energy comes from renewable energy sources.
The CO2 emissions that Bitcoin is estimated to produce this year are 14.1% lower than last year. This while the computing power of the network has increased. This is probably related to the decreased profitability. As a result, miners tend to turn off inefficient machines and use more efficient machines to make a profit, the report said:
“Miners are rational economic agents. They wouldn’t run something just to run it. They would shut down machines that are not profitable and then move on to the more profitable ones.”
CO2 reduction bitcoin miners not included
Those who keep an eye on the bitcoin news will certainly have come across articles about miners that help with CO2 reduction. Think, for example, of miners who use methane gas at oil drilling sites and convert it into electricity. This ultimately ensures that fewer greenhouse gases end up in the air.
However, this data has not been included in the CCAF’s estimates. “We simply don’t have the data,” said Alexander Neumueller, project leader at CCAF. He also observes the discussion between pros and cons of Bitcoin, and concludes the following:
“Observing both sides’ arguments, some of the claims seem rather far-fetched and based on oversimplifications, while others are based on sparse information. […] Interest groups on both sides compete for interpretive authority to influence public opinion in their favor and convince policymakers of the need for regulation.”
