Do cryptocurrencies really pollute as much as they are claimed to? Or perhaps the leaders of the traditional financial system have been much more adept at minimising the environmental impact they cause?

Discussions about the high energy consumption and socio-environmental impact of cryptocurrency mining are becoming increasingly frequent. Industry specialists are looking for proposals within and outside the crypto ecosystem, seeking to reduce the negative footprint presumably generated by the use of renewable energies on the environment.

We are aware that almost all human actions leave a footprint that causes damage to the environment, but trading crypto-assets is not the only thing that leaves a footprint, another example is the traditional financial system.

In this regard, in a dialogue between Cointegraph and STATUS NETWORK’s Marketing Manager, Eduardo Erlo, he believes that operating with cryptocurrencies generates a large energy consumption, however, he also states that the changes that are emerging within the crypto ecosystem should be made known in order to mitigate this risk.

“Most of the time, stating that it pollutes, without giving additional context or making clear what changes are being made to make it less polluting, is just a political action. Different actions and plans, such as changing consensus algorithms to reduce the computing power needed for transactions”.

Although cryptoassets are increasingly capturing the attention of people around the world, the topic is still very foreign to many, and it is this lack of information that has led to so much talk in the mainstream media about the pollution caused by mining cryptocurrencies.

“It’s mainly about the lack of understanding of the technology, the political actions and the vagueness about the real benefit it brings to the population. Again, many things pollute more and have no real gain for society (only for a small number of people) and almost nobody talks about it,” says Eduardo Erlo.

No one talks about what pollutes the traditional banking system, to which Eduardo argues that it is due to the “lack of understanding of who is the real bad guy here and what is the technology that is really trying to bring freedom to people’s lives. Also, centralised banks still have a lot of power in the media,” he emphasised.

He also noted that: “Using renewable energy is a good idea for everyone, not just cryptocurrencies. Using renewables is just one of the things the crypto market is trying to do to reduce the damage“.

He added: “There are also other initiatives, such as the implementation of different mining algorithms (Proof-of-Stake), which do not depend on high computing power and the massive use of energy (Proof of Work)“.

To conclude the dialogue with Cointelegraph, the executive pointed out the notoriety of the high use of electricity to operate with cryptocurrencies, however, in his opinion, this should not be the only approach that should be given to this practice, since this type of technology has much to offer to society. 

In the same vein, the CEO of Let’s Bit believes that little knowledge about Bitcoin leads people to think that cryptocurrency mining is highly polluting.

On social networks, in the cryptocurrency and traditional investor communities, and even in national parliaments, the pollution that cryptocurrency mining would generate has been debated, even being compared with the functioning of the traditional banking system and assessing whether it would be aligned with the plans of the UN 2030 agenda.

In this regard, Camilo Cristia, CEO of Let’s Bit, the Argentinean cryptocurrency exchange app, expressed his opinion on the alleged pollution caused by bitcoin mining, stating that “the high energy consumption involved in mining cryptocurrencies leads people to think that it is highly polluting. Being a relatively new technology and unknown to many, it is thought that spending energy on them is superfluous and damages the environment. This, in turn, is the main argument of bitcoin’s detractors“.

Cristia also took the opportunity to refute this theory about bitcoin mining by comparing the energy consumption of the banking system.

“I think there are two reasons (that the energy consumption of the banking system is not discussed): we are used to the existence of banks, physical money and other parts of the traditional financial system, so we don’t tend to question so much something that was “always” there. And then, I think the leaders of the traditional financial system have been adept at minimising their environmental impact“.

Finally, it is also worth noting that a report by ValueChain was released earlier this month, which stated that banking consumed 56 times more energy than Bitcoin.

Source: Cointelegraph, Cointelegraph

Disclaimer: The information set out herein should not be taken as financial advice or investment recommendations. All investments and trading involve risk and it is the responsibility of each individual to do their due diligence before making any investment decision.