Bitcoin requires more energy than whole countries, such as Austria and Greece. In that way, the criticism directed at cryptocurrencies is often justified regarding their negative impact on the climate and sustainability. This applies in particular to Bitcoin, the world's most used and dominant cryptocurrency. At the same time, cryptocurrencies are an important piece of the puzzle in future development, not least in the economic interactions and trade that need to become greener.

When Bitcoin was created in the late 2000s, the currency was less well-known than today and had lower emission levels concerning total use and electricity consumption. While the first studies on Bitcoin's climate impact began to appear in the mid-2010s, the argument for Bitcoin has been that the currency would eventually become greener. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened, leading to more calls for Bitcoin to be banned or taxed with special carbon taxes.

Here, however, there are several problems, not least considering that Bitcoin has done a lot of good globally regarding personal freedom and human rights in countries such as Venezuela and Belarus. In Bitcoin's defense, it should also be said that the currency has not caused total energy shortages in the world, as some studies and debaters previously claimed. Nor is it possible to ban cryptocurrencies in practice, as it would be technically difficult for governments to effectively enforce such bans.

Proposals for special taxes for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies may sound progressive and enticing but are not without problems. For example, similar reasoning about energy consumption could be used about emails, Instagram stories or credit cards.

The climate-related criticism of Bitcoin is primarily based on the fact that its system for calculation, validation and transactions requires enormous amounts of electricity. This process is known as "mining" where many computers together verify transactions through mathematical interactions and codes. For example, it has been calculated that a single Bitcoin transaction generates the same amount of carbon dioxide as 700,000-750,000 transactions with a Visa card.

If Bitcoin is to be part of the future solution for climate change instead of being part of the problem, the alternative is to become greener for real. In turn, that requires Bitcoin's users to collectively try to agree on how Bitcoin could work. If Bitcoin doesn't change, more people could choose greener less resource-intensive currencies like Seeds or Tezos. In Seeds case, the currency is created to benefit climate projects and the global transition, while Tezos uses a production system that requires much less energy compared to Bitcoin

Through a democratic conversation process, more Bitcoin users could agree on decisions required for Bitcoin to become a climate-friendly currency. For example, if other and less resource-intensive validation systems should be used? Or if Bitcoin's "miners", i.e. individuals who produce Bitcoin, should receive support to change their energy systems to greener electricity production?

Fundamentally, Bitcoin's future depends on the community and users. Decentralization is also about more people interacting more freely and democratically without the involvement of public institutions or centralized intermediaries such as banks. Given that the climate issue is a survival issue for humanity, Bitcoin's users should also try to agree on how Bitcoin should be able to exist in step with the sustainable and climate-friendly development of the future.

Thanks for reading. You can reward and support my writing via: 

Pay Pal – [email protected]

Seeds – vladlausevic

Skycoin – ZxjhWMJRbTNCRQzy5MekZzH4fhdWFCqBP8

Bitcoin 3HbxyDXE9MhNQ8RqsirqgYvFupQzh5Xby2

Swish – 0762345677

Tezos — tz1QrRzkTAKuPKF8dmGW6c1ScEHBUGvoiJBM

Cardano – addr1q9vfs6nqz4xmtnpljwhv4tukyskd2g7enxd87rpugkwwvfun5pnla5d5tes2mvurrc77e7837yd0scrfk063qlha8wgs8d4ynz