Elon musk criticized the carbon footprint of cryptocurrency. Bitcoin specifically. I am astonished that a man capable of great self reflection failed to recognize that his secondary product, Tesla electric vehicles, maintain their charge with electricity from the same power grid.  Of course this charging action on carbon based electricity is counterbalanced by a perceived positive cost benefit.  But that requires a secondary analytical process to figure out.  Why isn’t the same secondary analytical process applied to Bitcoin?

Whenever you contemplate the “carbon impact” of any technology, you have to take an unbiased look at the secondary layers to the cost benefit analysis.

One analytical point I thought of in the comparison of an electric vehicle and Bitcoin, is the assumption of renewable energy as the driving resource.  The EV industry has plans to build into their network of charging stations, renewable energy sourcing, and lithium battery banks to store the energy in off-peak times.  These plans are often referred to in the long term elimination of carbon in the EV footprint of the world.  But this renewable sourcing consideration doesn’t reach the snap analysis of Bitcoin mining.  But it should.  Did you know 39% of the energy used by Bitcoin miners are from renewable resources?  And 75% of miners use renewables within their energy mix.

Bitcoin mining is a business.  Think about the number one variable cost within that business … it’s power!  The very nature of cost cutting and Bitcoin mining viability ensures reliance on cheap and renewable energy.  What you don’t hear in the debate about Bitcoin mining carbon affects is how efficient the miners already are at tapping cheap energy.  For example, a large portion of Bitcoin mining draws power from hydroelectric sourcing.  There is a ton of unused wasted energy from the hydroelectric process.  They simply aren’t near major power consumption centers.  Bitcoin miners are able to consume this wasted over-capacity of hydroelectric facilities.

The carbon cost benefit analysis of Bitcoin has to consider the utilitarian value of Bitcoin to humanity.  It’s ironic that the same people pushing Bitcoin down as a skeptical gamble, are the same people encouraging global migration and governmental structures.  Take a look at Nigeria.  Did you know Nigeria ranks third in Bitcoin trading volumes, only behind Russia and the United States?  Bitcoin holds the most utility for those living in a bankless society.  Or those who need to send payments across borders to family members.  In the past few years political turmoil has embattled Venezuela forcing millions to move into neighboring Columbia.  Transplants can use Bitcoin to send money back to their family members, and it is safe from confiscation of a dictatorial regime.  Not to mention the transfer cost savings of skipping the toll booth at Western Union.

Finally, I have often wondered what the basic value measurement is for Bitcoin.  Our fiat paper used to be backed by gold.  Then, before the printing press went wild, some theorized that our fiat paper money was tied to oil.  My friend Tom Luongo suggests that all the magic of the Dollar maintaining reserve currency status is in proof of guns.  What would bitcoin be tied to?  The answer seems obvious.  Wouldn’t the value of Bitcoin be an inherent measure of electricity?  As the world weans itself off carbon based electricity production, wouldn’t this exact monetary measure be the perfect currency of the future.  For all the talk about carbon tax, I wonder why our monetary overlords haven’t figured this out yet.  Ah yes, the overlord’s power comes from the management of said monetary system.  And now we can see the foundation of the carbon Bitcoin propaganda campaign.  See stupid, Bitcoin is terrible for the environment!  It can’t be a via