CQFD – More than 20 members of the House of Representatives had sent a letter dated April 20, 2022, to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan. Lawmakers have asked the institution to investigate the negative effects of cryptocurrency mining, including Bitcoin (BTC), such as: noise pollution, electronic waste, and CO2 emissions. The crypto community did not sit idly by in the face of this attack – sneaky? MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor and member companies of the Bitcoin Mining Council have also taken up their pens to fight back.
Bitcoin and the environment: green advocacy
Michael Saylor is among the signatories to the May 2, 2022 letter to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. This letter was signed by over 50 bitcoin mining advocates.
It is, according to Michael Saylor, a “response to clear up confusion, correct inaccuracies and educate the public”. This response indicates that the letter from the representatives is ” based on several misperceptions of Bitcoin and its mining.
Bitcoin advocates notably reject accusations that mining generates carbon emissions. They specify that minors simply buy electricity from the gridjust like Microsoft and other data center operators.
>> Looking for an eco-friendly crypto platform? Join FTX (affiliate link) <<
Would Bitcoin really be a threat to the planet?
Rather, carbon emissions depend on “power generation,” not cryptocurrency mining. However, the letter recalls that the production of electricity and therefore the emissions, are the consequences:
“political choices and economic realities that determine the nature of the electricity grid “.
Advocacy for mining further refutes the figure of 30,700 tonnes of electronic waste per year produced by bitcoin mining. This data is taken up by the legislators in their request addressed to the administrator of the EPA. However, it would come from a biased source whose reliability is questionable.
The letter co-signed by Saylor also tackles the argument that a single bitcoin transaction would power an average American household for a month.
A reasoning based on the energy cost per BTC transaction would just be wrong. The future energy growth of Bitcoin would rather depend on two variables.
It depends on the one hand issuing bitcoins – mining result. The production of new bitcoins is influenced by the evolution of the price and supply of the cryptocurrency.
This energy growth would depend on the other hand, fees that users are willing to pay to transact”.
Bitcoin would therefore ultimately not be a threat to the planet? Rather, it would provide an opportunity for the United States to be “more innovative, economically resilient, ultimately stronger in the future.” At least, if Uncle Sam decides to adopt “the Bitcoin network”, and to accept its mining.
But will the Bitcoin Mining Council make the Environmental Protection Agency and other lawmakers listen to reason who simply want a moratorium on bitcoin mining ?
You can heat your home by mining Bitcoin! If you prefer to simply buy some, register without waiting on the benchmark crypto platform FTX and benefit from a lifetime discount on your trading fees (affiliate link, see conditions on official website).