I was reading this thread https://cybre.space/@patience/105793245432080832 and one question came to mind. If use of Bitcoin hasn't produced noticeable increase in greenhouse gas emissions, how stopping using it could cause noticeable decrease?
When I noticed an article on The Guardian about Bitcoin electricity use that was from Saturday, I decided to investigate more. News on Bitcoin energy use and carbon footprint are based on Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index. As described in methodology they estimate the computing power needed to run Bitcoin network and efficiency of mining equipment to estimate electricity use of the network. I'm explaining this to point out that they are not measuring actual greenhouse gas emissions.
They also have a page comparing energy use of Bitcoin to other energy uses. Comparison where if Bitcoin was a country it would rank between Sweden and Ukrine in electricity consumption. What doesn't get mention is that World's solar and wind electricity production could run 11 Bitcoin networks. Or that the amount of electricity consumed every year by always-on but inactive home devices in the USA alone could power the Bitcoin network for 1.7 years.
If you are not worried about carbon footprint of your television in stand-by mode, you probably shouldn't worry about carbon footprint of Bitcoin. I also found this in IEA Tracking Power 2020 report:
Solar PV generation increased 22% (+131 TWh) in 2019 and represented the second-largest absolute generation growth of all renewable technologies, slightly behind wind and ahead of hydropower.
Meaning all we have to do is double the amount of new solar power generation to cover electricity used by Bitcoin.
What this actually shows is that calculating carbon footprints of different activities is just a sideshow to distract from the fact that it's fossil fuel industry that is killing the world. I don't see banks and credit card companies make new account applicants sign a document stating that none of their funds come from fossil fuels.