https://hackernoon.com/the-reports-of-bitcoin-environmental-damage-are-garbage-5a93d32c2d7

No! Bitcoin is Not a Threat To the Environment

The continuous noise and hoopla around the potential damage caused by the Bitcoin ecosystem have been finally debunked for good. Robert Sharratt, CEO of Reassure Financial, has finally rebuked all clickbait articles claiming Bitcoin is a potential danger to the environment.

Internet culture has become a herd mentality and clickbait has become the new way of garnering a user base. The herd mentality does not allow for fact verification and 20 retweets can make you trending in the world of internet and social media.

Last year was full of arguments that Bitcoin mining and transaction can add up to 2 degrees to the global temperature. Sharratt who has a background in electronics has debunked many myths surrounding Bitcoin being a potential threat to the environment.

Sharratt took down every flawed aspect of the article and backed his claims with the help of his extensive experience in the electronics sector. But even before Sharratt, CoinShare has earlier debunked the environmental harm claims by publishing a report on how Bitcoin is using 80 of its energy needs through renewable energy.

Robert Sharratt Debunks All Myths Of Bitcoin Being an Environmental Hazard

Robert Sharratt in his article not only pointed out the flaws with Nature’s article which claims that the Bitcoin ecosystem could be the potential cause of growing global warming concerns. But he went a step further to pinpoint one Blogger who without any knowledge of Bitcoin, electronics or technology in general, wrote a blog which became a reference for most of the high end publications like  Forbes, Bloomberg, The Economist, The Times, Vox, The Independent, The Guardian, The New York Times, etc.

The blogger in question Alex de Vries, a so-called “Data Consultant & Blockchain Specialist,” not only used in scientific methodologies to reach a predetermined conclusion but Robert calls it unethical as well.

Robert points out that the data used by De Vries and later used by two scientific journals and later other major publications are not from a scientific source, but it was just assumed. Robert explains,

“[de Vries’] power consumption index starts with the financial output (i.e. the income and costs for the miners who maintain the Bitcoin architecture) and then backs out the technical inputs to these financial statements (i.e. the amount of electricity consumed). So, he has these financial outputs, right, and makes them available? Well, no again. He doesn’t have this information either. So, his methodology, if you can call it that, is to make assumptions for financial information that he doesn’t have, to then derive the technical volume. The derivation method is also completely based on his assumptions. Which he just makes up out of thin air; they are not at all based on any empirical data whatsoever.”

The Claims Of Bitcoin Using Coal-fueled Energy For mining Turns out Ignorant At Best

In his article, De Varie assumes that the Bitcoin mining which is specifically concentrated in countries like China make use of energy produced by burning coal. This claim has already been debunked in the CoinShare. Robert believes this presumption can be made by a noob who does not know anything about China’s power industry at all.

The novice claims made by the blogger has been putting the Bitcoin industry in a bad light and Robert believes it’s really surprising that major publication like Bloomberg did not find it suitable to at least find a valid source for the proof.

Robert Finally concludes his blog by saying,

“low-quality speculative blogs written from home by completely biased people who know nothing about the industry they are talking about […] would just be ignored. But this standard of truth-finding just doesn’t apply to the crypto industry.”

You can read the complete Blog written by Robert Sharratt here.