The Environmental Protection Agency or EPA retains receiving mail. This time, 14 members of Congress supplied the counterpoint and identified the environmental advantages of bitcoin mining. They additionally made a degree about how essential this trade is, and the harm the USA would inflict on itself by banning it. Plus, they schooled the EPA on the quantity of renewable sources-based power already in play all around the trade.
— Dennis Porter (@Dennis_Porter_) June 16, 2022
Podcaster and bitcoin cultural commentator Dennis Porter broke the information and supplied the total textual content. It begins with a bang, the instead-of-flaring pure fuel argument. “As you know, a substantial portion of digital asset miners’ energy use is based on renewable sources. Additionally, many miners use other power sources, like natural gas, that may otherwise go unused.” By utilizing fuel that in any other case can be flared is greater than carbon-neutral or net-zero, it’s successfully local weather optimistic.
Then, the 14 members of Congress hit the EPA with real-life outcomes. “Bitcoin mining that utilizes flared gas is also reducing methane emissions in Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, West Virginia, Ohio, and North Dakota.” It’s as ESG Analyst and ClimateTech VC, Daniel Batten’s recent study places it:
“And Batten and company say that’s “the only way” as a result of the bitcoin mining trade has “the unique combination of being location-agnostic, mobile and interruptible makes Bitcoin mining the only economically feasible use case for the two major sources of leaking methane emissions examined in this paper.”
Besides obsoleting methane flaring, bitcoin mining has one other concrete profit that the EPA may wish to learn about: stabilizing the grid. “Digital asset mining can have a substantial stabilizing effect on energy grids. It maintains robust baseload levels, yet it can be switched off quickly in times of peak demand.”
Does The EPA Care About The Economic Future Of The USA?
One factor’s for certain, governments can’t actually ban bitcoin mining. They can solely ban themselves from bitcoin mining. Does that present a internet profit for the nation that tries? Or does it simply damage the residents and put them at a transparent drawback? The textual content from the 14 Congress members to the EPA is simply concerning the USA, however individuals from different nations may wish to take notes.
“Most importantly, digital assets, and their related mining activities, are essential to the economic future of the United States. Other countries are rapidly moving to adopt digital assets and are attracting large amounts of capital and talent in the hopes of growing their own financial services sectors as digital assets and distributed ledger technology are widely adopted in the coming decade.”
What “other countries” are they referring to right here? Could it’s El Salvador, the little engine that might? Or are they talking concerning the Central African Republic, which simply began its bitcoin journey? The coming decade will likely be attention-grabbing, to say the least. Then, the 14 members of Congress shock the world by not throwing Proof-Of-Stake programs below the bus in entrance of the EPA.
“Treasury Secretary Yellen articulated it best last week when she stated regulation should also be “tech neutral.” Favoring one know-how over one other, together with proof-of-work versus proof-of-stake, can stifle innovation, erode future financial good points, and restrict affiliated efficiencies.”
Let the market determine, EPA. Do it for innovation.
BTC worth chart for 06/18/2022 on BinaceUS | Source: BTC/USD on TradingView.com
This Is The Third Letter The EPA Gets
The 14 members of Congress finish their EPA plea with a patriotic tone:
“American leadership in digital asset technologies is essential to ensuring the next generation of Americans can enjoy the prosperity and opportunity that our country has been blessed with. As you evaluate the potential environmental issues surrounding digital assets, the critical role that responsible innovation will play in our long-term economic future cannot be overlooked.”
That makes rather more sense if you notice that this letter is a response to a earlier one the EPA acquired. In April, different members of Congress confirmed their lack of trustworthy analysis in an embarrassing letter that’s stuffed with lies like this few:
“PoW-based cryptocurrencies include Bitcoin, Ethereum, Monero, and Zcash. A single Bitcoin transaction could power the average U.S. household for a month. According to estimates by researchers, Bitcoin produces annually carbon emissions comparable to Greece. Less energy intensive cryptocurrency mining technologies, such as “Proof-of-Stake” (PoS), can be found and have 99.99 p.c decrease power calls for than PoW to validate transactions.”
How can the individuals in cost use ridiculous and evidently debunked statements like, “a single Bitcoin transaction could power the average U.S. household for a month.” Are they not conscious that Digiconomist, the uncredited supply, works for the Dutch Central Bank? Conflict of curiosity apart, his numbers won’t ever add up. Because they’re lies.
In any case, the Bitcoin Mining Council responded to that letter’s wild inaccuracies in a second letter to the EPA signed by the likes of Michael Saylor and Jack Dorsey. They didn’t cowl the advantages that the bitcoin mining trade affords the world, although. And that’s why this third letter was needed.
Featured Image by jplenio from Pixabay | Charts by TradingView