Over the past few months, the environmental issue has become increasingly topical. The push of Greta Thunberg and his strike against global warming has brought under the magnifying glass of public opinion a problem that governments have never managed to solve, closed in a hyperproductivist perspective, in which the exploitation of the territory costs what it costs, has an absolutely central role.
Also the sector of cryptocurrency entered the discussion, albeit outright. In fact, digital assets are accused of excessive consumption, especially in the form of electricity required for mining. The accusation, however, is probably excessive, in light of some considerations.
Is mining energy-intensive?
A recent study of the University of Hawaii, published in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change, says that by 2033 the extraction of Bitcoins and the now thousands of Altcoins present on the market could lead the global temperature to a growth of two degrees centigrade. The use of the conditional is linked to the observation that currently it is not possible to predict the speed with which cryptocurrencies will be able to spread in this period of time. In the worst case scenario, this growth would nullify the agreements made over the last few years, starting from that of Paris, largely overstepping the limits set.
To confirm the expenditure of energy connected to the calculation activity necessary to extract the blocks there is another study, the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, created by the research center Center for Alternative Finance of the famous English university, which establishes the cumulated consumption of the network called to support Bitcoin at around 77 per year.
Mining is expensive, but ...
If we consider that the annual electricity consumption of the whole of Switzerland stands at around 57 terawatt hours every 12 months, we can conclude that cryptocurrencies are expensive in energy terms. However, it is necessary to understand how much, and here the discussion becomes considerably more complex. Especially if you compare this data to that relating to annual consumption of electric devices left on perennially, even in their inactivity phase, in the homes of the United States, which is basically three times higher.
The last fact to be taken into consideration may perhaps be able to give a more complete idea of the real terms of the matter. In practice, in fact, the consumption required for BTC is equivalent to 0,36% of the annual consumption at global level. We can therefore also think of eliminating cryptocurrencies, but for the purpose of resolving the environmental question it would be practically useless, if we do not proceed with interventions on activities that are extremely more energy-intensive and able to impact much more negatively on the ecosystem.
Of course, digital assets could also try to play their part in fighting global warming. To confirm this assertion, we have only to cite the poor Bitcoin efficiency compared to other forms of payment, demonstrated by the fact that a single transaction with the most famous cryptocurrency consumes the same amount of energy needed to 400mila transactions made using a credit card. A data to think about with extreme attention.
