Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Cryptocurrency is destroying the earth - Technological advancement is overshadowing environmental concerns
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Cryptocurrency is destroying the earth - Technological advancement is overshadowing environmental concerns
The globe is currently in the grip of a climate crisis
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United States saw a record-breaking 22 different billion-dollar natural catastrophes in 2020, costing a total of $96.4 billion. There were three in 1980, only 40 years before.
Cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens are the latest offenders of these rapidly rising temperatures (NFT).
The amount of energy required to mine cryptocurrency alone is massive. According to the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, if Bitcoin were a country, it would rank 33rd in the world in terms of energy consumption, trailing only the Netherlands and the United Arab Emirates. Not to mention Ethereum, a cryptocurrency used in NFT transactions.
And this isn't the kind of mining you'd see on the side of a mountain. It employs thousands of high-performance computers to solve extremely tough and complex mathematical problems. These aren't your average laptops or PCs mining for cryptocurrency. Top-of-the-line graphics processing units (GPU) that cost thousands of dollars apiece are used by computers mining cryptocurrency. This has resulted in a worldwide GPU shortage, with the average buyer unable to obtain an essential component for a new computer. Prices have risen as a result, and manufacturers are scrambling to find a solution.
All of this mining produces vast amounts of carbon dioxide, which pollutes our air, depletes our ozone layer, and warms our environment. Because cryptocurrency consumes so much energy, Elon Musk, a long-time admirer of the technology, said that Tesla will no longer accept Bitcoin as payment, citing the “rapidly expanding use of fossil fuels for Bitcoin mining and transactions.” Following that, the price of Bitcoin fell by 10%.
The same is true for NFTs
NFTs are intended to demonstrate the originality of a one-of-a-kind item. An image, for example, can be copied hundreds of times by random people online, but an NFT represents the original file or image. It's like the difference between seeing the genuine Mona Lisa and buying a poster of it at a gift shop. In practise, however, this is not the case.
If you purchase an NFT, you will still receive the same JPEG that everyone else may download, but you will also receive a line of blockchain stating that you are the sole owner of the original. That's all there is to it: some random characters and numbers in a long line of code.
NFTs have been lauded as a fantastic way for digital artists to monetise their work, and this is partially correct. Tens of millions of dollars have been paid for digital photos, all for a digital evidence of ownership. If the deal is worth millions of dollars and tonnes of carbon dioxide, the world is doomed.
Because that is the crux of the issue. NFTs and cryptocurrencies were lauded as a fantastic opportunity to break free from the constraints of our physical reality. The idea was that as we move into a more digital future, our art and money should follow suit.
Instead, they have devolved into a get-rich-quick scheme that is harming the globe.
NFTs are sold at exorbitant rates in auctions, much like classical artworks. Companies and influencers may slap a few pixel images together, call it great art, build a reputation through their fans or investors, and then sell it for millions to some rich person with money burning a hole in their pocket.
As an example, consider the infamous CryptoPunk NFTs. CryptoPunks are a collection of 10,000 randomly produced pixel images of various cyberpunk faces. According to Larva Labs, the lowest price for one is now $378,725.30. Over 13,000 sales are worth around $1.24 billion in total.
That money might be used for so many things. That amount of money might provide housing for nearly 23,000 homeless persons in Los Angeles. Instead, it's used for practically worthless blockchain lines.
Cryptocurrencies are similarly ineffective, as they are considered more like a stock on the New York Stock Exchange than as a revolutionary means to trade money.
Take for example, the infamous DogeCoin. Do you suppose people chanted "To the moon" in the hopes of DogeCoin reaching one dollar in value with the expectation that it would lead to the decentralisation of banks? No. The vast majority of investors just wanted their stock to rise in value and, as a result, make more money.
Recently, the well-known esports organisation FaZe Clan was embroiled in a major scandal after several of its members were caught pushing a fraudulent cryptocurrency touted as a way to "rescue the kids."
When the price and popularity of the product increased, they swiftly sold their shares, making hundreds of thousands of dollars, while their followers who invested in it received nothing.
The fact about cryptocurrencies is that the people benefiting from Bitcoin's stock surging are not ordinary folks with a few dollars in the currency, but millionaires who can afford to pay exorbitant prices in a volatile market.
In classic rich-person fashion, short-term monetary gains outweigh long-term environmental losses. And who will bear the consequences of their actions? Of course, there are poor folks.
When Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc on New Orleans in 2005, thousands of lives were lost, with poor Black residents bearing the brunt of the damage, with years of their lives wiped away. This was thought to be a once-in-a-generation storm — until Hurricane Harvey made landfall in the same area again in 2017, and then Hurricane Ida arrived a little more than a week ago.
When a hurricane threatens, affluent people can flee to a secure location. Everyone else is left in the dust. When the hurricane arrives, the wealthier houses have the infrastructure to resist the high winds. Everyone else needs to hope that their house isn't destroyed. Rich people can pay their way out of economic losses once the hurricane passes. Everyone else has been trapped in generational poverty for decades.
Climate change, and hence these bitcoin and NFT operations, will exacerbate and increase the frequency of these calamities. Wind speeds will increase as our atmosphere and oceans warm, and hurricanes will grow in size.
Cryptocurrencies are currently consuming too much energy to be worth the rewards, and it appears that these issues are an afterthought in the race for technological growth. Cryptocurrency creators are too preoccupied with whether or not they could, but they haven't stopped to consider whether or not they should.
Perhaps the future is in crypto, and this is the beginning of the future. However, in today's world, cryptocurrency is a carbon-emitting behemoth that must be curtailed before we further devastate our already destroyed ecosystem.
Support us!
View all episodes
By Crypto PiratesThe globe is currently in the grip of a climate crisis
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United States saw a record-breaking 22 different billion-dollar natural catastrophes in 2020, costing a total of $96.4 billion. There were three in 1980, only 40 years before.
Cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens are the latest offenders of these rapidly rising temperatures (NFT).
The amount of energy required to mine cryptocurrency alone is massive. According to the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, if Bitcoin were a country, it would rank 33rd in the world in terms of energy consumption, trailing only the Netherlands and the United Arab Emirates. Not to mention Ethereum, a cryptocurrency used in NFT transactions.
And this isn't the kind of mining you'd see on the side of a mountain. It employs thousands of high-performance computers to solve extremely tough and complex mathematical problems. These aren't your average laptops or PCs mining for cryptocurrency. Top-of-the-line graphics processing units (GPU) that cost thousands of dollars apiece are used by computers mining cryptocurrency. This has resulted in a worldwide GPU shortage, with the average buyer unable to obtain an essential component for a new computer. Prices have risen as a result, and manufacturers are scrambling to find a solution.
All of this mining produces vast amounts of carbon dioxide, which pollutes our air, depletes our ozone layer, and warms our environment. Because cryptocurrency consumes so much energy, Elon Musk, a long-time admirer of the technology, said that Tesla will no longer accept Bitcoin as payment, citing the “rapidly expanding use of fossil fuels for Bitcoin mining and transactions.” Following that, the price of Bitcoin fell by 10%.
The same is true for NFTs
NFTs are intended to demonstrate the originality of a one-of-a-kind item. An image, for example, can be copied hundreds of times by random people online, but an NFT represents the original file or image. It's like the difference between seeing the genuine Mona Lisa and buying a poster of it at a gift shop. In practise, however, this is not the case.
If you purchase an NFT, you will still receive the same JPEG that everyone else may download, but you will also receive a line of blockchain stating that you are the sole owner of the original. That's all there is to it: some random characters and numbers in a long line of code.
NFTs have been lauded as a fantastic way for digital artists to monetise their work, and this is partially correct. Tens of millions of dollars have been paid for digital photos, all for a digital evidence of ownership. If the deal is worth millions of dollars and tonnes of carbon dioxide, the world is doomed.
Because that is the crux of the issue. NFTs and cryptocurrencies were lauded as a fantastic opportunity to break free from the constraints of our physical reality. The idea was that as we move into a more digital future, our art and money should follow suit.
Instead, they have devolved into a get-rich-quick scheme that is harming the globe.
NFTs are sold at exorbitant rates in auctions, much like classical artworks. Companies and influencers may slap a few pixel images together, call it great art, build a reputation through their fans or investors, and then sell it for millions to some rich person with money burning a hole in their pocket.
As an example, consider the infamous CryptoPunk NFTs. CryptoPunks are a collection of 10,000 randomly produced pixel images of various cyberpunk faces. According to Larva Labs, the lowest price for one is now $378,725.30. Over 13,000 sales are worth around $1.24 billion in total.
That money might be used for so many things. That amount of money might provide housing for nearly 23,000 homeless persons in Los Angeles. Instead, it's used for practically worthless blockchain lines.
Cryptocurrencies are similarly ineffective, as they are considered more like a stock on the New York Stock Exchange than as a revolutionary means to trade money.
Take for example, the infamous DogeCoin. Do you suppose people chanted "To the moon" in the hopes of DogeCoin reaching one dollar in value with the expectation that it would lead to the decentralisation of banks? No. The vast majority of investors just wanted their stock to rise in value and, as a result, make more money.
Recently, the well-known esports organisation FaZe Clan was embroiled in a major scandal after several of its members were caught pushing a fraudulent cryptocurrency touted as a way to "rescue the kids."
When the price and popularity of the product increased, they swiftly sold their shares, making hundreds of thousands of dollars, while their followers who invested in it received nothing.
The fact about cryptocurrencies is that the people benefiting from Bitcoin's stock surging are not ordinary folks with a few dollars in the currency, but millionaires who can afford to pay exorbitant prices in a volatile market.
In classic rich-person fashion, short-term monetary gains outweigh long-term environmental losses. And who will bear the consequences of their actions? Of course, there are poor folks.
When Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc on New Orleans in 2005, thousands of lives were lost, with poor Black residents bearing the brunt of the damage, with years of their lives wiped away. This was thought to be a once-in-a-generation storm — until Hurricane Harvey made landfall in the same area again in 2017, and then Hurricane Ida arrived a little more than a week ago.
When a hurricane threatens, affluent people can flee to a secure location. Everyone else is left in the dust. When the hurricane arrives, the wealthier houses have the infrastructure to resist the high winds. Everyone else needs to hope that their house isn't destroyed. Rich people can pay their way out of economic losses once the hurricane passes. Everyone else has been trapped in generational poverty for decades.
Climate change, and hence these bitcoin and NFT operations, will exacerbate and increase the frequency of these calamities. Wind speeds will increase as our atmosphere and oceans warm, and hurricanes will grow in size.
Cryptocurrencies are currently consuming too much energy to be worth the rewards, and it appears that these issues are an afterthought in the race for technological growth. Cryptocurrency creators are too preoccupied with whether or not they could, but they haven't stopped to consider whether or not they should.
Perhaps the future is in crypto, and this is the beginning of the future. However, in today's world, cryptocurrency is a carbon-emitting behemoth that must be curtailed before we further devastate our already destroyed ecosystem.
Support us!