Please note: Most, if not all, of the articles published at this website were completed by Chat GPT (chat.openai.com) and/or copied and possibly remixed from other websites or Feedzy or WPeMatico or RSS Aggregrator or WP RSS Aggregrator. No copyright infringement is intended. If there are any copyright issues, please contact: bicycledays@yahoo.com.
On Jan. 8, 2024, a New Scientist article sparked debate by questioning whether nations ought to consider banning bitcoin due to its environmental footprint. The editorial has drawn significant criticism from numerous bitcoin supporters. Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) expert Daniel Batten sharply lambasted the article, labeling it as βbad science, not new scienceβ and accusing it of using βwidely discredited methodologies.β
Experts Criticize New Scientist Editorial for Misrepresenting Bitcoinβs Environmental Impact
Numerous bitcoin enthusiasts expressed dissatisfaction with the recent New Scientist editorial released on Monday. The piece, written by Matthew Sparkes, debates whether countries should outlaw bitcoin (BTC) due to its energy-intensive mining practices. Sparkes alleges that BTC miners are βunwilling to take action to curb the cryptocurrencyβs energy and water use,β despite many miners utilizingrenewable energy sources and reducing flare gas emissions to mine the digital currency.
Sparkes notes that βsome campaignersβ advocate for governmental intervention in this matter. The writer also mentions efforts to contact seven different bitcoin mining companies and the Bitcoin Mining Council for their perspectives, stating that none of these entities responded to requests for an interview. However, Sparkes did succeed in engaging with some βcampaignersβ who support government involvement, including Alex de Vries.
De Vries, formerly associated with De Nederlandsche Bank NV (DNB), the central bank of the Netherlands, is often viewed by bitcoin advocates as having data that carries extreme bias and inaccuracies toward the Bitcoin networkβs use of energy. The New Scientist article did not fare well on the social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter), where crypto advocates shared their opinions on the topic. βThis is false just as a heads up,β Nic Carter wrote to the New Scientist social media account.
Carter shared another tweet that touched upon the article when he remarked:
Community note crowd β this is false. [The real] number is 50 bps, not 70 (not a huge [difference] but still [a] 40% overestimate). Bitcoin consumption: 153TWh/year (CBECI); 157TWh/year (CM). Electricity generation worldwide 2022: 29k TWh. 153/29000 = 0.53%.
ESG analyst Daniel Batten also chimed in. βThis is bad science, not new science,β Batten said. βUsing widely discredited methodologies, 2-year-old data that has since changed fundamentally, [and] not looking at positive externalities. You have adopted a throwback position that even 25 out of 26 branches of Greenpeace have not takenβ Another person responded to Battenβs comment and said, βPrecisely. Shockingly bad article. Sparkes is demonstrably disingenuous and the article is anti-scientific.β
The article from New Scientist, much like a significant portion of contemporary science, has ignited skepticism regarding how modern scientists and the academic elite have tarnished the reputation of science, attempting to persuade the general public that 2+2 equals 5. One bitcoiner revealed that they were blocked by the author of the New Scientist piece, Sparkes, for simply making inquiries about the subject. Reportedly, the New Scientist author deleted his X account and at the time of writing, the account does not exist on X.
What do you think about the critique of the New Scientist article? Share your thoughts and opinions about this subject in the comments section below.
