Bitcoin, Weed, Non-fungible tokens, and climate change

 Source:

https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/bitcoin-weed-and-nfts

"My case against Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies is simple: we already have money and it works great.

Now contrast my argument here with those of climate hawks, whose case against Bitcoin tends to begin and end with its carbon footprint.

We shouldn’t fret about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies centrally because of their carbon intensity.

We should fret because, by and large, they serve no useful social function.

... We should not oppose emerging technologies and activities merely because they consume a lot of energy.

...  “Bitcoin may be a bad idea, but desalination and wastewater treatment, large-scale materials recycling, direct-air carbon capture, vertical farming and aquaculture, and spaceflight have a lot to say for them — and all will come with significant energy demands.”

... Consider a cousin of cryptocurrency: NFTs, or non-fungible tokens.

NFTs are, essentially, unique digital artworks.

They are also the latest fad to face criticism from climate advocates.

“Crypto-art buying is built on the same blockchain technology currently frying the climate,” wrote Gizmodo’s Brian Kahn ...

NFTs rely on the same artificially scarce computer processing power for their production as Bitcoin does.

That processing power uses a non-trivial amount of electricity, much of which still comes from fossil fuels.

... Will NFTs still be frivolous in a low-carbon future?

Absolutely.

But we have mostly not treated frivolity as a social ill, and I don’t think we should start now because of climate change.

Pokemon cards and video games are frivolous.

So, arguably, are films, fitness classes, and farmers markets.

... But we should not ban them or regulate them out of existence based on an allegedly objective environmental footprint evaluation.

Let’s consider another frivolity: weed.

... (the) argument rests largely on indoor weed’s carbon emissions, emissions that I suppose might be lowered if the cannabis were grown outdoors under sunlight (that is unless outdoor cultivation requires clearing forests ...

... other problems associated with indoor cultivation, pointing to “water supply and water treatment infrastructure, worker safety, and mountains of solid waste ...

... reasons growers prefer to produce weed indoors, include quality, lower water consumption, reduced pest risk, precision in breeding and cultivation, and the ability to produce more harvests in a year.

These are the same virtues promised by the indoor cultivation of arugula, tomatoes, strawberries, and other land-intensive greens and produce.

... This is par for the course for the ecological holier-than-thou crowd.

They pick a product or behavior they don’t like and emphasize every possible downside while ignoring benefits, tradeoffs, and the implications of their own logic.

Whether it’s opposition to digital artwork or a rejection of the pretty widespread consumer preference for indoor-grown cannabis, these attitudes traffic in the same scarcity mindset ...

This ... is no way to garner concern for climate change ...

If we adequately address climate change, we will do so by building a future of abundance, not scarcity."