ESG Organizations Send Letter To Congress About PoW Mining, Bitcoin Responds

Is the ESG FUD going to stop ever? As a Congressional subcommittee prepares to take a good look at Proof-Of-Work mining, “more than 70” national, international, state and local organizations wrote a letter to the “Congressional leadership.” In it, they use old and unreliable data to get their point across. They completely ignore all of 2021’s research and progress on the matter, because it would invalidate their argument.

It is now a question of whether Congress will buy the poorly researched and alarmist letters. ESG FUD was a devastating blow to PoW mining in 2021. Although it may have been based on poor knowledge of the topic, the general public certainly bought it. They also cite the fake numbers their authorities created on social media. 

Despite Crackdown, Bitcoin Mining Is Still Alive And Well In China| Despite Crackdown, Bitcoin Mining Is Still Alive And Well In China

The argument ignores Bitcoin’s main merit. The orange coin provides a framework and tools for the world’s transition to a disinflationary system. Paraphrasing “The Price Of Tomorrow’s” author Jeff Booth, in the inflationary system that we live in, there’s a clear incentive for consumption. If your money’s purchasing power decreases by the minute, everybody will logically buy, spend, and consume everything in sight. That is the real monster that the planet’s facing. Bitcoin is the solution.  

In any case, Bitcoin’s resident ESG FUD expert, Nic Carter, took it upon himself to reply to the ESG organizations that sent misinformation to Congress. Let’s see how each part did.

Nic Carter Counterpoints The ESG Organizations.

ESG Organizations come out swinging since the introduction: 

“We, the more than 70 climate, economic, racial justice, business and local organizations, write to you today to urge Congress to take steps to mitigate the considerable contribution portions of the cryptocurrency markets are making to climate change and the resulting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, environmental, and climate justice impacts it will have.”

They are also accurate right away.

“In 2018, scientists writing in Nature warned that Bitcoin’s growth alone could singlehandedly push global emissions above 2 degrees Celsius within less than three decades.”

These numbers are absurd. They “assume” a progression relative to the number of users of the network, and that’s simply not how Bitcoin works. The network still produces one block per ten minutes even if everyone adopted Bitcoin’s standard. The number of users does not correlate with energy consumption. 

Nic Carter’s response? That the claim is “false, based on a debunked paper with a completely erroneous model of bitcoin.”

Next, ESG groups throw Ethereum under a bus.

“The Digiconomist’s Ethereum Energy Consumption Index estimates that the Ethereum blockchain will consume 71 terawatt-hours this year, nearly the same as the energy consumption of Colombia.”

The letter makes complete sense as it concerns PoW mining. At least on Twitter, it seems that the Ethereum community has completely ignored this letter. 

BTCUSD price chart for 01/07/2021 - TradingView

BTC Price Chart for 01/07/2021 On Bitstamp Source: BTC/USD at| Source: BTC/USD on

Bitcoin Incentivizes Green Energy Infrastructure

ESG Organizations continue to attack the poor-researched with:

“The GHG emissions from this exorbitant and unnecessary energy consumption is staggering.”

It’s not unnecessary at all. PoW mining is essential to a permissionless, decentralized system. It is also directly proportional with the network security. This also helps to connect it with the real world. Bitcoin is actually a currency. Incentivizes green energy and funds it infrastructure.

Then, the ESG crowd accuses Bitcoin of “exacerbating” the global chip shortage:

“Increased demand for these machines are exacerbating a global shortage of semiconductors. A bipartisan bill by Senators Maggie Hassan and Joni Ernst has called for a report on how cryptocurrency mining operations are impacting semiconductor supply chains.“

With ease, Nic Carter counterattacks with: “Bitcoin miners are not tier 1 clients, they don’t compete with Apple/Qualcomm/NVIDIA for space; the shortage is due to money printing and the demand shock. Section on Semis Click here.”

Texas Doesn’t Know What Its Doing, The ESG Crowd Does

The ESG Investigators are then free to make wild and unsupported assertions about Texas power.

“Following a crackdown on cryptocurrency miners in China, many miners are moving to Texas, due to its deregulated grid, taking away the power that Texans need.”

The fact that Texas is trying to lure these miners to its state does not get mentioned. And unlike ESG organisations that signed the notorious letter, Texas’ power companies attend regular Bitcoin meetings. They make every effort to grasp the potential of the technology. Also, as Carter puts it, “Majority of mining is in west texas where transmission bottlenecks mean prices routinely go negative. Huge overcapacity and limited demand for power outside of mining.”

The state of Texas knows what it’s doing, they see Bitcoin’s future is bright. But these ESG groups think they have the right idea.

“Adding more energy-guzzling crypto mining operations to Texas could exacerbate the sorts of blackouts the state already saw during the extreme cold in February — outages that reporting shows hit communities of color the hardest.”

Wow! So low. Unrelated. Anyway, answering the claim that miners “could exacerbate” the February blackouts, Carter says. “Miners were/ would have been offline during this time, as we demonstrate here. They also help alleviate ‘black start’ issues through primary frequency response.” 

Three Other Prominent Bitcoiners’ Response

Are these direct responses to the ESG organizations’ letter? It’s not clear, but the authors published them in the same timeframe. First, SHA256 is the cryptographic hash function that Bitcoin uses. Nunchuk founder Hugo Nguyen said, “Once you understand that SHA256 is close to being 100% efficient at what it does, you’d stop calling it a “waste”. In fact, 100% efficiency is the exact opposite of “waste”. There’s nothing else like it.”

For his part, Swan Bitcoin’s Brandon Quittem attacks the concept of energy consumption being inherently bad. “Energy consumption is directly correlated with GDP. Do you want to support developing countries? Give them more energy. Interestingly, Bitcoin acts as a free market subsidy for energy investment.”

And Kraken’s Dan Held states that “Bitcoin’s energy consumption is not “wasteful.” Why? Because “It is much more efficient than existing financial systems.” And we’re talking orders of magnitude, here. Not only that, “No one has the moral authority to tell you what is a good or bad use of energy (ex: watching the Kardashians).”

Are you aware of how much electricity American homes use to light their Christmas trees? As much as the whole Bitcoin network, that’s how much. 

Similar Reading: Is this the Reason China Bans Bitcoin Mining?| Is This The Reason China Banned Bitcoin Mining? Carvalho’s Mind Blowing Theory

Where is the letter to Congress protesting  Christmas lights, ESG organizations?

Featured Image by Karsten Würth on Unsplash  | Charts by TradingView

Get more Crypto News at CFX Magazine