ESG Organizations Send Letter To Congress About PoW Mining, Bitcoin Responds

Visit the original article *×307.jpg

Will ESG FUD ever stop? As a congressional subcommittee prepares to take a closer look at Proof of Work mining, “more than 70” national, international, state and local organizations have written a letter to “Congress Leadership.” In it, they use outdated and unreliable data to make their point. They completely ignore all of the 2021 research and progress on this, as it would invalidate their argument.

The question is, will Congress buy their poorly researched annoying message? ESG FUD hit PoW mining like a ton of bricks in 2021. It may be based on poor understanding of the topic at hand, but the public in general definitely bought it. They quote the false numbers invented by their authorities from left and right on social media.

Related reading | Despite the crackdown, Bitcoin mining is still alive and well in China

Also, the whole argument completely ignores Bitcoin’s fundamental virtue. The orange currency provides a framework and tools for the world’s transition to an anti-inflationary regime. Paraphrasing “The Price of Tomorrow” author Jeff Booth, in the inflationary system we live in, there is a clear incentive to consume. If the purchasing power of your money decreases every minute, everyone will logically buy, spend and consume everything in sight. This is the real monster the planet is facing. And Bitcoin fixes it.

In any case, Nick Carter, a Bitcoin-based ESG FUD expert, took it upon himself to respond to ESG organizations that sent misinformation to Congress. Let’s see how each part did.

Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance Organizations make their point, Nick Carter

ESG organizations come out swinging from the front around:

“We, over 70 climate, economic, ethnic, business, and local organizations are writing today to urge Congress to take steps to mitigate the significant contribution of cryptocurrency markets to climate change and the resulting greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts, environmental impacts, and climate justice impacts.”

And its accuracy starts from the beginning, too:

In 2018, scientists writing in Nature warned that Bitcoin growth alone could push global emissions above two degrees Celsius in less than three decades.

These numbers are ridiculous. The study assumes progress relative to the number of network users, which is not how Bitcoin works. Even if the entire planet adopted the Bitcoin standard, the network would still produce one block every ten minutes. Energy consumption is not directly related to the number of users.

What did Nick Carter reply? That the claim is “false, based on a paper debunked with a completely wrong model of bitcoin.”

2. Bitcoin Energy Consumption ‘Will Get Worse Over Time’

It will most likely decline over time, after peaking in the next decade (see for a really accurate forecast)

– Nick Carter (@nic__carter) January 6, 2022

Right after that, the ESG organizations dumped Ethereum under the bus:

“The Digiconomist’s Ethereum Energy Consumption Index estimates that the Ethereum blockchain will consume 71 TWh this year, roughly the same as Colombia.”

Since the letter is about Proof of Work mining, it makes sense. The message appears to have been completely ignored by the Ethereum community, at least on Twitter.

BTC price chart for 07/01/2021 on Bitstamp | Source: BTC/USD on
Bitcoin spurs green energy infrastructure

ESG organizations continue their poorly researched offensive by:

“The greenhouse gas emissions from this expensive and unnecessary energy consumption are staggering.”

It is not necessary at all. In fact, Proof of Work mining is absolutely necessary for an unlicensed decentralized system. Energy consumption is directly proportional to network security. In addition, it connects it with the real world. Not to mention the fact that Bitcoin is already catalysing and financing green energy infrastructure.

Next, the ESG audience accuses Bitcoin of “aggravating” the global chip shortage:

The increasing demand for these machines is exacerbating the global shortage of semiconductors. A bipartisan bill by Senators Maggie Hassan and Joni Earnest called for a report on how crypto mining is affecting semiconductor supply chains.”

Easily, Nick Carter counterattacked with: “Bitcoin miners are not a first-class customer, they are not competing with Apple/Qualcomm/NVIDIA for space; the shortage is due to money printing and demand shock. See semi-final section here.”

5. Atlas/Greening Increased Energy Prices in New York.

Online Atlas miner has brought back the Bor Coal Plant (converted to Natgas) which now provides power to the grid (as well as mining). This is the energy that is supplied to the grid that was not previously produced

– Nick Carter (@nic__carter) January 6, 2022

Texas doesn’t know what to do, as does ESG

Next, ESG researchers made wild and unsupported assumptions about Texas’ strength:

“After a crackdown on miners in China, many miners are relocating to Texas, due to its unregulated network, taking away the energy Texans need.”

This completely ignores the fact that the state of Texas has gone to great lengths to attract these miners. That is, in contrast to the ESG organizations that signed the infamous letter, Texas energy firms regularly attend Bitcoin meetings. They make an effort to understand the technology and the opportunities it offers them. Also, says Carter, “The majority of mining operations are located in West Texas where transportation bottlenecks routinely drive down prices. Massive spare capacity and limited energy demand outside of the mining sector.”

Miners also participate in the demand response, which means that they are not connected when the network is overburdened. Their presence greatly improves the economics of renewables and does not compete with households during scarcity events.

– Nick Carter (@nic__carter) January 6, 2022

The state of Texas knows what they are doing, they see the future of Bitcoin as bright. These ESGs think they know best, though:

“Adding more energy-intensive crypto-mining to Texas could exacerbate the kinds of power outages the state already experienced during the frigid February of February — outages that reports appear to hit communities of color even more.”

Wow, play the racing card there. very low. and irrelevant. Anyway, in response to the claim that miners “could exacerbate” the February blackout, Carter says. “The miners would have been/could have been offline during this time, as we explain here. They also help mitigate ‘black start’ issues through initial frequency response.”

9. Bastion mining with waste coal is bad (implied)

The waste coal would have oxidized naturally. It was going to burn anyway. This is an incentive to clean up a bad site that breathes groundwater, etc. Neutral from the point of view of CO2 and ++ from the point of view of the environment

– Nick Carter (@nic__carter) January 6, 2022

Three other notable bitcoins returned

Are these direct responses to the mission of ESG organizations? It’s not clear, but the authors published it in the same time frame. The first refers to SHA256, which is the set of cryptographic hash functions used by Bitcoin. Nunchuk founder Hugo Nguyen said, “Once you understand that SHA256 is close to being 100% efficient at what it does, you will stop calling it ‘waste.’ In fact, 100% efficiency is the exact opposite of ‘waste.’ There is nothing else. like him “.

Once you understand that SHA256 is close to being 100% efficient at what it does, you’ll stop calling it a “waste”. In fact, 100% efficiency is the exact opposite of “waste”. There is nothing else like it.

– Hugo Nguyen (@hugohanoi) Jan 7, 2022

For his part, Brandon Quittem of Swan Bitcoin attacks the concept of energy consumption being inherently bad. Energy consumption is directly related to GDP. Want to help developing countries? Help them harness more energy. Interestingly enough, bitcoin serves as a free market support for energy investment.”

3/ Energy consumption is directly related to GDP.

Want to help developing countries? Help them harness more energy.

Interestingly enough, Bitcoin acts as a free market support for energy investment.

Stimulates the development of non-economic energy sources.

– Brandon Quittem (@Bquittem) Jan 6, 2022

Kraken’s Dan Heald stated that “Bitcoin’s energy consumption is not a ‘waste.’ Why? Because it is ‘much more efficient than current financial systems.’ And we’re talking about amount, here. Not only that, ‘Nobody has the moral authority to tell you what it is.'” Good or bad use of energy (example: watching the Kardashian family).”

1/ Bitcoin energy consumption is not “waste”.

– It’s more efficient than current financial systems – no one has the moral authority to tell you what is a good or bad use of energy (example: watching the Kardashian family)

Let’s expose this mess

– Dan Held (@danheld) January 6, 2022

Do you know how much energy American households use for their Christmas lights? As far as the entire Bitcoin network, that’s how much.

Related reading | Is this the reason why China banned bitcoin mining? Carvalho’s theory is mind-blowing

Where is the message to Congress in protest of the Christmas lights, environmental, community and governance organizations?

Featured image by Karsten Würth on Unsplash | Charts by TradingView

Leave a Comment