While all the mainstream media, opposing a depressing obtuseness, persisted in marrying the thesis of the environmental catastrophe caused by bitcoin mining, the cryptocurrency community tried to explain, just as stubbornly, that things were not at all like that; , not because we intended to make a defense of part of mining, but simply because the news spread through the press was patently false. The community is perfectly aware of the limits of decentralized blockchain networks and is working to overcome them, but it is not willing to tolerate the media inventing certain flaws in these networks just for terrorism. With a report published about a week ago The New Scientist, a weekly scientific publication published in English since 1956, has finally contributed with its authority to discredit the widely distributed press, that bitcoin is incompatible with the fight against change climate. The study, produced by Susanne Köhler and Massimo Pizzol of the University of Aalborg in Denmark, demystified the hypotheses according to which Bitcoin energy consumption could reach 63 megatons of CO2 per year; researchers claim that catastrophic estimates are the result of a false premise, namely that carbon emissions from electricity production are uniform throughout China, where the bulk of the computing power expressed by the network is concentrated bitcoin.

Researchers have therefore shown how bitcoin mining is mainly distributed in areas of China that exploit hydroelectric energy, while in those where energy is mainly produced from coal, such as Mongolia, just 12% of the hash is concentrated rate. In practice, compared to the estimates that have been circulated by the media, the carbon footprint is just 25% of what is estimated, that is to say substantially the numbers circulated are inflated by ¾. The researcher Susanne Köhler has therefore declared that it is still necessary to monitor the electricity consumption of the network, but we must not give in to alarmism and media terrorism that, in recent months, has even come to claim that the Paris agreement on climate does not will be respected due to bitcoin mining. What published in The New Scientist is therefore perfectly superimposable on the various reports, which we also dealt with in the past, which certify that about 75% of the energy used to undermine bitcoin is attributable to renewable sources, an energy that the media catastrophe had instead assumed, in a completely arbitrary manner, to have been produced by coal-fired power plants. As we have already had occasion to explain, then, that of using renewable energies is a growing trend, so it is possible to imagine a future in which 100% of bitcoin mining will come from renewable sources and this is not because miners are sensitive to the environmental issue but simply because this is the most profitable way to undermine bitcoin. In light of what has been said so far, therefore, if there is a risk of environmental catastrophe this is represented by the current economic-financial system, whose servers, data centers, offices, branches, large skyscrapers, etc., use only minimal part renewable sources to operate; dismantling all this apparatus that, in addition to pollution, produces only inequity and poverty, we would all benefit, not only the environment but also the people. This explains why more and more people around the world support and use bitcoins.