9 mistakes in the White House’s report on the climate implications of cryptomining

President Joe Biden’s executive order on cryptocurrencies included tasking the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) with conducting a study of the climate implications of cryptocurrency mining, but an industry expert sees several problems with it.

Specifically, according to CoinMetrics co-founder Nic Carter, it ‘Climate and Energy Implications of Crypto Assets in the United States‘ the study has nine critical flaws, which he listed and explained on his September 15 blog.

No new data

First of all, Carter says that “this report is mainly a regurgitation of data presented (and in some cases summarized) by academia and bloggers,” and accuses the authors of limited experience with Proof-of-Work (PoW) debates or laziness in their approach .

Ignoring industry experts

He also accuses the authors of “ignoring contributions from industry experts,” such as from Arcane Research, the Bitcoin Mining Council, or ‘Bitcoin Net Zero‘ report by NYDIG’s Ross Stevens and Carter himself.

Quoting De Vries

In addition, he sees a problem with “extreme dependence on [Alex] De Vries/Digiconomist,” as De Vries works for the “anti-crypto” Dutch central bank and is not a climate expert or an authority on mining. He refutes De Vries’ claims about BTC energy consumption and alleged e-waste and emissions from cryptocurrencies.

Citing Gallersdörfer, Klaaßen and Stoll

Furthermore, Carter criticizes the reliance on the “non-academic” and “conflicting” work of Ulrich Gallersdörfer, Lena Klaaßen and Christian Stoll, who “actually monetize their academic efforts with a consultancy called the Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute (CCRI)”. and helps “Proof of Stake blockchains wash their reputations”.

Relying on ‘absurd’ reports

Referring to the “absurd” Camilo Mora et al. 2018 report”Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2°C” is another pain point, which Carter says is that it “assumes a model of Bitcoin (BTC) that has no relation to Bitcoin at all, and gets a patently incorrect result.”

Conflicting approach to data use

Regardless of acknowledging the lack of data and that the estimates are uncertain, the report still presents “wild guesses from the likes of De Vries as fact” and cites erroneous figures. As Carter added:

“In places where we could have reasonably good models, such as estimating Bitcoin’s future energy consumption (…), they refuse to make an estimate. Although the report highlights data gaps and underscores the epistemic limitations of this subject, the authors are generally undaunted and plowing on with naked claims.”

“Can’t win” approach to miners using renewable energy

The most frustrating part of the report, in Carter’s opinion, is its dismissal of miners’ efforts to decarbonize their operations, including rejecting flare gas reduction, arguing that using stranded renewables hinders transmission, and failing to credit miners for “subsidizing a renewable deployment” . .”

Avoid estimates of Bitcoin’s energy trajectory

He also questions the reluctance of the report’s authors to propose a single model projecting Bitcoin’s future energy use, leaving it “open to the imagination”, especially given that such models are “generously provided by the industry, which the government has chosen to see away from. “

‘Stupid and counterproductive’ proposals

Finally, Carter bashes the “stupid and counterproductive” recommendations that force Bitcoin miners to bring “net new renewable generation online to be eligible to mine,” a requirement that does not exist for any other industry in the United States

As a reminder, back in March 2022, President Biden signed an executive order establishing the government’s stance on cryptocurrencies and laying out its first strategy to protect consumers, financial stability, national security and address climate implications, as Finbold reported.