ArticlePDF Available


In the Spring of 2021, the mining crackdown in China shook up global Bitcoin mining activity. We show that this crackdown may have reduced the use of renewable electricity sources for Bitcoin mining, resulting in increased carbon intensity of mining activities. We estimate that Bitcoin mining may beresponsible for 65.4 MtCO2 annually, which is comparable to country-level emissions in Greece.
Revisiting Bitcoin’s Carbon Footprint
Alex De Vries,
,* Ulrich Gallersdörfer,
Lena Klaaßen,4,
Christian Stoll,4,
Joule Volume 6, Issue 13, P498-502, March 16, 2022. DOI:
In the Spring of 2021, the mining crackdown in China shook up global Bitcoin mining activity. We
show that this crackdown may have reduced the use of renewable electricity sources for Bitcoin mining,
resulting in increased carbon intensity of mining activities. We estimate that Bitcoin mining may be
responsible for 65.4 MtCO2 annually, which is comparable to country-level emissions in Greece.
School of Business and Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Founder of Digiconomist, Almere, The Netherlands
TUM Software Engineering for Business Information Systems, Department of Informatics, Technical University
of Munich, Germany
CCRI Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute, Dingolfing, Germany
Climate Finance and Policy Group, Department of Humanities, Social and Political Sciences, ETH Zurich,
MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA 02139, USA
TUM School of Management, Technical University of Munich, Germany
Although Bitcoin's stature in mainstream finance has grown, its environmental impact remains
uncertain. The increasing attention paid to climate risks and carbon emissions1 has triggered a heated
debate about the sources of electricity used to mine Bitcoin. There are widespread estimates of the share
of renewable electricity sources in the electricity mix that powers Bitcoin mining (see Supplemental
Data Sheet 18), ranging from 39% (according to a survey by the Cambridge Centre for Alternative
Finance or CCAF) to over 58% (according to an industry initiative called the Bitcoin Mining Council)
and even 73% (according to digital assets service provider Coinshares).
Mining is the process of adding new blocks to the Bitcoin blockchain to validate transactions. It involves
a process of trial-and-error that resembles a competitive numeric guessing game in which a correct
guess completes a block and only the winner obtains rewards in the form of both newly minted
Bitcoins and transaction fees. The Bitcoin software automatically adjusts the difficulty of guessing a
correct number to maintain a constant time of 10 minutes between the creation of new blocks. In May
2021, approximately 2.9 million specialized hardware devices worldwide competed in this game,
generating 160 quintillion guesses per second2 and consuming approximately 13 gigawatts (GW) of
electricity (see Supplemental Data Sheet 10 and 11).
In the Spring of 2021, the mining crackdown in China shook up global Bitcoin mining activity. Inner
Mongolia became the first Chinese province to cite environmental concerns as justification for banning
crypto mining in March 2021.3 Between May and June 2021, crypto mining bans were issued in other
Chinese provinces such as Sichuan and Xinjiang, which had historically been hotspots for Bitcoin
mining.4 By the end of June 2021, the crackdown eliminated crypto mining activities within China,
which previously hosted the majority of Bitcoin miners.
In this commentary, we show that this mining crackdown may have increased the carbon intensity of
Bitcoin mining. Based on mining locations and regional carbon emission factors, we found that the
carbon intensity of Bitcoin mining may have increased by 17% in August 2021 compared to the 2020
average. This potential increase highlights the need for stakeholders in the crypto industry to accelerate
the development of strategies to overcome investors' environmental, social, and governance (ESG)
Bitcoin’s Mining Footprint
The carbon footprint of Bitcoin mining can be estimated based on electricity sources used by miners.
Previous research outlined different methods for approximating mining locations.4 Based on one of these
approaches, the CCAF regularly generates a map that shows the global distribution of miners (see
Supplemental Data Sheet 8). It is based on Internet Protocol (IP) address information collected from
four “mining pools”:, Poolin, ViaBTC, and Foundry USA. Collectively, they represent 44%
of total Bitcoin mining activity as of October 2021.5 Mining pools combine the computational power of
connected mining devices. By joining pools and sharing rewards, miners can stabilize their revenue
stream. In the process, they reveal their IP address, which can be used to establish their location.
By matching the estimated mining location data to the carbon intensity of electricity generation at the
location, it is possible to visualize how the electricity mix that fuels the Bitcoin network may have
evolved. To this end, we considered a global breakdown of mining activities per country and a
specification of mining activities within the United States obtained from the CCAF and Foundry USA,
respectively.6 Figure 1 shows that the use of renewable electricity sources may have declined following
the mining crackdown in China. We estimate that the share of renewable electricity sources that fuel the
Bitcoin network may have decreased from an average of 41.6% in 2020 to 25.1% in August 2021.
Figure 1 | Estimated electricity mix that fueled the Bitcoin network from September 2019 to August 2021. The country-
level electricity mixes used to calculate the overall electricity mix for the Bitcoin network are based on 2019 data due to the
limited availability of more recent data. Data and sources can be found in Supplemental Data Sheet 2.
A possible explanation for this decline is that the Bitcoin network no longer had access to hydropower
from the Chinese provinces of Sichuan and Yunnan. Before the crackdown in China, miners seasonally
relocated to these provinces to take advantage of their abundant hydropower. After the wet season, they
migrated back to coal-dependent provinces, such as Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia. Many miners were
previously located in China; the seasonal fluctuation can be observed in Figure 1.
After the mining crackdown in China, miners primarily migrated to other countries such as Kazakhstan
and the United States. Consequently, the share of natural gas in the electricity mix nearly doubled from
15% to 30.8% according to our calculations, and the emission factor of coal-fired power generation
potentially increased due to higher-emitting plants in Kazakhstan compared to China. Therefore, the
average carbon intensity of electricity consumed by the Bitcoin network may have increased from
478.27 gCO2/kWh on average in 2020 to 557.76 gCO2/kWh in August 2021.
Notably, the potential shift from coal resources in China to coal resources in Kazakhstan may have had
a major impact on the average carbon intensity of electricity consumed by the Bitcoin network. While
the emission factor for coal-generated electricity in China is in line with the global average, the Eurasia
region (which includes Kazakhstan) has performed significantly worse (see Supplemental Data Sheet
15). For instance, Kazakhstan mainly burns hard coal, which has the highest carbon content of all coal
types. Moreover, it operates numerous subcritical coal-fired power plantsthe least efficient form of
coal-fired generation.
Based on average emission factors (557.76 gCO2/kWh) and the Bitcoin network's estimated electric load
demand (13.39 GW as of August 2021), we estimate that Bitcoin mining may be responsible for 65.4
megatonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) per year. Figure 2 depicts the estimated global carbon footprint of Bitcoin
mining, which is comparable to country-level emissions in Greece (56.6 MtCO2 in 2019) and represents
0.19% of global emissions.
Figure 2 | Estimated global carbon footprint of the Bitcoin network, as of August 2021. The country-level emission factors
used to calculate the carbon footprint are based on data from 2019 due to the limited availability of more recent data. Data and
sources can be found in Supplemental Data Sheet 1.
Since mining pool data from the CCAF represents a limited share of 44% of total Bitcoin mining activity,
this limitation introduces uncertainties in estimating emissions. One-off events, such as the 2021 mining
crackdown in China or the internet outage in Kazakhstan in 2022, provide empirical insights that can
be used to validate the representativeness of the pool data. Before the mining crackdown in China in
May 2021, pool data suggested 44% of the total Bitcoin mining activity was taking place in China.
Shortly after the crackdown, at the beginning of July, the hashrate of the entire Bitcoin network had
decreased by 45% (see Supplemental Data Sheet 17) compared to May 2021. For Kazakhstan, pool
data suggested 18% of total Bitcoin mining activity was taking place in the country as of August 2021,
while the internet outage at the start of January 2022 resulted in an immediate decrease of 15% in the
network hashrate.7 Therefore, estimated mining locations based on mining pool data from the CCAF
can serve as a proxy for the actual mining locations, even though it may over or underestimate mining
activity in certain countries.
The mining pool data likely overestimates the share of Bitcoin’s global computational power located in
Ireland and Germany. This is because miners can disguise their activities with virtual private networks
(VPNs) and other proxy services if they reside in countries hostile to crypto mining. The CCAF noted
that there is little evidence of large mining operations within German and Irish borders. Germany and
Ireland both have relatively clean electricity sources compared to other Bitcoin mining locations.
Excluding and redistributing the share of Bitcoin's total global computational power located in Germany
and Ireland would increase the average emission factor by 3% to 573.51 gCO2/kWh (see Supplemental
Data Sheet 6).
The average emission factor would likely increase further if a breakdown of mining activities in Canada
was considered. Such a specification is currently not available, but it is known that the Black Rock
Petroleum Company announced the deployment of up to 1 million Bitcoin mining machines on gas-
producing sites in Alberta in July 2021. With a carbon intensity of 790 gCO2/kWh, the emission factor
for Alberta is much higher than the Canadian average of 130 gCO2/kWh. Moreover, Quebecwhich
relies almost exclusively on renewable electricity sourcesalready limited the power available to crypto
miners to 688 megawatts in 2019.
Furthermore, emission factors remain a key source of uncertainty in estimates of cryptocurrency
emissions.8 As there is often a time lag of one to two years until emission factors are published, emission
factors over 2019 were used as a proxy for 2021 emission factors. This might slightly over- or
underestimate the actual emission factors in 2021. There was, however, no clear upward or downward
trend in emission factors over the last two years. The carbon intensity of global power generation grew
in 2021 after a decline in 2020 due to surging electricity demand.9
Stranded Fossil Assets Revival
The use of marginal emission factors over average emission factors could have a more significant impact
on the estimates of cryptocurrency emissions. Marginal emissions reflect the change in emissions as a
result of a change to the electric load on a grid. Mining activities increase power demand, which activates
additional electricity generation resources. For example, in New York State, stranded fossil assets (i.e.
assets that can no longer generate an economic return) have been reactivated to power Bitcoin mining
operations. Environmentalists have warned that 30 fossil-fueled power plants in New York State could
be resurrected for mining operations.10 Average emission factors do not properly capture this impact.
As the majority of New York State’s power originates from low-carbon sources, applying average
emission factors therefore underestimates the emissions related to Bitcoin mining in this example.
Another U.S. example can be found in Kentucky, which grants tax breaks to attract Bitcoin miners and
thus saves coal companies and creates new jobs.11 According to our calculations, this has led Kentucky
to become the highest-emitting American state in the Bitcoin network (see Figure 3). In addition,
Pennsylvania subsidizes mining company Stronghold Digital Mining to burn coal refuse. Stronghold
Digital Mining has expansion plans and aims to attain a 5% share in the Bitcoin network through this
electricity source12 (Pennsylvania currently represents 0.04% of the global Bitcoin network). However,
to account for cause-effect relationships in detailed electricity system modeling it would be required to
know exact mining locations and load information, but this data is currently unavailable. The estimates
in this commentary were made using average emission factors rather than marginal emission factors.
Figure 3 | Estimated carbon footprint of the Bitcoin network in the United States, as of August 2021. The emission factors
used to calculate the carbon footprint are based on 2019 data due to the limited availability of more recent data. Data and
sources can be found in Supplemental Data Sheet 1.
In the short term, reactivating or prolonging the lifetime of stranded fossil fuel plants or assets to serve
the additional load required by crypto mining operations is likely to continue. Recent attempts to utilize
flare gas in Russia and the United States are other examples of how Bitcoin mining may generate revenue
for companies active in the fossil fuel industry. From an environmental perspective, however, flare gas
utilization to generate electricity results in the same amount of carbon emissions as flaring. For instance,
in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency requires a minimum flare combustion
efficiency of 98%. Therefore, flare gas utilization projects would only yield climate benefits if the
electricity generated from them replaces electricity generated from higher carbon fuels such as coal or
if they reduce waste gases from venting and leakage.
The decreasing usage of renewable electricity sources for Bitcoin mining following the crackdown in
China highlights the need for stakeholders in the crypto industry to accelerate efforts to decarbonize the
industry. Some Bitcoin stakeholders had already signed the Crypto Climate Accord, a private sector-led
initiative launched in April 2021 that represents a commitment to increase the use of renewable
electricity to 100% by 2030. Such commitments may need to be strengthened with compliance
mechanisms to support their credibility.
However, even if the Bitcoin mining industry manages to increase the use of renewable electricity, the
use of the latter for Bitcoin mining is not without its own controversy. In November 2021, the Swedish
Financial Supervisory Authority and Environmental Protection Agency called for a ban on
cryptocurrency mining over concerns that the use of renewable electricity for mining could delay the
energy transition of essential services.13 Furthermore, research on Bitcoin mining has shed light on a
variety of ESG issues.14 While they do not significantly contribute to the carbon emissions generated by
the Bitcoin network, issues such as electronic waste generation cannot immediately be addressed merely
by increasing the use of renewable electricity.
A rapid solution to Bitcoin’s carbon footprint is not within sight. While other blockchain systems rely
on more energy-efficient consensus mechanisms, the likelihood of changing the proof of work
mechanism in Bitcoin is negligible due to its enormous complexity. Even Ethereum, which established
a goal to switch from proof of work to proof of stake since its inception six years ago, still has not fully
migrated to the more energy-efficient alternative. While Bitcoin accounts for roughly two thirds15 of the
total energy demand of all cryptocurrencies, however, more energy-efficient consensus mechanisms
have also elicited environmental concerns. For cryptocurrencies to succeed in mainstream finance, users,
investors and other stakeholders must collectively shift incentives towards the use of more renewable
electricity sources in networks to overcome environmental issues. If this transition succeeds,
cryptocurrencies may provide valuable lessons for other industries and processes that face similar
environmental issues.
1. Klaaßen, L., and Stoll, C. (2021). Harmonizing corporate carbon footprints. Nat Commun 12, 6149.
2. de Vries, A., and Stoll, C. (2021). Bitcoin’s growing e-waste problem. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 175, 105901.
3. Forkast (2021). China’s crypto miners make hard choices to meet climate goals.
4. Stoll, C., Klaaßen, L., and Gallersdörfer, U. (2019). The Carbon Footprint of Bitcoin. Joule 3, 1647
5. The Block (2022). Latest data shows the US now leads with 35% of Bitcoin’s hash rate.
6. CNBC (2021). New York and Texas are winning the war to attract bitcoin miners.
7. CNBC (2022). Kazakhstan’s deadly protests hit bitcoin, as the world’s second-biggest mining hub
shuts down.
8. Masanet, E., Shehabi, A., Lei, N., Vranken, H., Koomey, J., and Malmodin, J. (2019). Implausible
projections overestimate near-term Bitcoin CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 653654.
9. IEA (2022). Surging electricity demand is putting power systems under strain around the world.
10. Associated Press (2021). Bitcoin-mining power plant raises ire of environmentalists.
11. Lexington Herald Leader (2021). KY lawmakers want tax breaks for cryptocurrency mining.
But will this create jobs?
12. Fortune (2021). New IPO demonstrates why Bitcoin mining is the most stupendously profitable
business on the planet right now.
13. Finansinspektionen (2021). Crypto-assets are a threat to the climate transition energy-
intensive mining should be banned.
14. de Vries, A., Gallersdörfer, U., Klaaßen, L., and Stoll, C. (2021). The true costs of digital
currencies: Exploring impact beyond energy use. One Earth 4, 786789.
15. Gallersdörfer, U., Klaaßen, L., and Stoll, C. (2020). Energy Consumption of Cryptocurrencies
Beyond Bitcoin. Joule 4, 18431846.
... 19 Some of these approaches have become quite controversial, and it is unclear at this juncture how all of it will land. 20 But, as the attendees of our roundtable emphasized, standardization and regulation will help build and shape this space beyond the sometimes chaotic Web3 in which we currently find ourselves. ...
... 19 The resulting annualized figure, 131.43 tWh, assumes that mining operations consume 60 percent of mining income. 20 "Such assumption-based calculations are prone to error," according to Jonathan Koomey, an expert in the energy of computing. "Economic parameters (like Bitcoin prices) are volatile and are at best imperfectly correlated with electricity use." ...
Full-text available
In the summer of 2022, The Linux Foundation gave me that opportunity, to participate in a roundtable on blockchain and sustainability, for which I’m grateful. It published my summary of the discussion under a CC BY-ND 4.0 license, with a foreword by Scott Chamberlin and an introduction by Tamara Kneese and Zane Griffin Talley Cooper. I came away with a fuller appreciation of the need to do our best in calculating the negative externalities of radical innovation (e.g., blockchain) and to improve those calculations continuously. No small feat.
... The indirect water footprint of Bitcoin mining is relatively straightforward to assess as it relies on similar inputs as the analysis of Bitcoin's carbon footprint. 8 To determine the indirect water footprint, it is important to establish the power demand of the network and the power sources. The Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) provides data on the power demand, spatial distribution of Bitcoin mining, and electricity mix, which are used to generate daily estimates of the network's carbon footprint. ...
Full-text available
Amid growing concerns over the impacts of climate change on worldwide water security, Bitcoin's water footprint has rapidly escalated in recent years. The water footprint of Bitcoin in 2021 significantly increased by 166% compared with 2020, from 591.2 to 1,573.7 GL. The water footprint per transaction processed on the Bitcoin blockchain for those years amounted to 5,231 and 16,279 L, respectively. As of 2023, Bitcoin's annual water footprint may equal 2,237 GL. To address this increasing water footprint, miners could apply immersion cooling and consider using power sources that do not require freshwater. A change in the Bitcoin software could also significantly reduce the network's water footprint.
... (accessed on 20 November 2023). Despite its numerous and innovative benefits [2], Bitcoin's energy-intensive production has become a point of criticism [3][4][5][6][7]. Some policymakers [8] and parts of the public [9,10] equate Bitcoin's global energy demand and contributions to climate change, even though these two factors are not necessarily correlated should mining prove to support the transition to renewable energy. ...
Full-text available
In this study, we used a combination of AI-assisted analysis of social media discourse and collaboration with industry experts to delve into the key research needs associated with the Bitcoin mining industry. We identified primary threats, opportunities, and research questions related to the Bitcoin mining industry and its wider impacts, focusing on its energy use and environmental footprint. Our findings spotlight the industry’s move towards increasingly greater energy efficiency and an emerging commitment to renewable energy, highlighting its potential to contribute to the coming energy transition. We underscore the transformative potential of emerging applications in the Bitcoin mining sector, especially regarding demand response, grid flexibility, and methane mitigation. We suggest that targeted research on Bitcoin can serve policymakers, private sector decision-makers, research funding agencies, environmental scientists, and the Bitcoin industry itself. We propose that filling key information gaps could help clarify the risks and benefits of Bitcoin mining by encouraging collaboration among researchers, policymakers, and industry stakeholders and conducting research that provides baseline peer-reviewed evidence surrounding Bitcoin’s production and impacts. A collaborative approach could help mitigate the risks and realize the benefits of Bitcoin mining, including potentially positive and substantive contributions in alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals.
... However, some estimations, show that some areas are more affected than others. For example, the vast majority of Bitcoin's computing power was in China until May 2021 (De Vries & al., 2022), when the Chinese government announced a ban on mining (which will subsequently take effect in September). Officially, Beijing's decision to ban the activity was motivated by a desire to reduce its consumption of coal, which accounts for the vast majority of the country's energy mix, in order to reduce its environmental impact (Fan & al., 2022), but also because the price of coal was rising sharply. ...
Full-text available
On 25 January 2022, following a beginning to the year which had been affected by major political unrest resulting in the deaths of more than 230 people 1 , Kazakhstan was hit by a major power blackout. For around twelve hours, the entire southern regions of the country were left without power, as were Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, two neighboring countries with which the southern country shares the same electricity network. This event is the culmination of several months of over-consumption, power surges and localized outages on the Central Asian networks. In Kazakhstan, electricity consumption rose by 8% in 2021, according to Ministry of Energy 2 , the national electricity operator, compared with the 1-2% annual increase previously recorded. This explosion in consumption is said to have been driven by the widespread development of cryptocurrency mining, a digital activity that can be extremely energy-intensive when operated on a large scale. Mining involves running processors, and therefore computing power, to secure the digital networks that enable various cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin, to be secured and operated. As a 'reward' for mobilizing this computing power and the resources consumed, verifiers-miners-can be automatically rewarded with cryptocurrencies. This is how bitcoins are issued, how they are 'mined' by machines, a process that accentuates the 'semiotic materiality' of bitcoin (Searada, 2020)
... Notwithstanding, cryptoassets have always been subject to criticism in relation to the high energy consumption (and consequent pollution) derived from the proof-of-work (PoW) system on which some of the main blockchains are based. Indeed, the literature abounds with studies on the energy consumption of cryptocurrencies, especially Bitcoin, and the environmental impact derived from this type of technology (Vranken, 2017;De Vries, 2018;Krause and Tolaymat, 2018;Mora et al., 2018;Truby, 2018;Stoll et al., 2019;Goodkind et al., 2020;Corbet et al., 2021;De Vries et al., 2022;Zhang et al., 2023), and has encouraged its transition to more energy-efficient systems (Truby et al., 2022;De Vries, 2023;Kapengut and Mizrach, 2023;Wendl et al., 2023). ...
Full-text available
The rapid rise of blockchain has stirred up a lot of interest lately. It's not just about cryptocurrencies anymore; people are excited about how it could help with big global issues, like climate change. This scientific paper is like a detective story. It's diving deep into the inner workings of consensus algorithms in blockchain systems, the decision-makers of the digital world. To figure out how these algorithms affect the environment, especially their role in carbon footprint, and to see if they're actually doing a good job at helping us deal with climate change. We're focusing on the well-known ones like Proof of Work (PoW), where it's all about computational skills, Proof of Stake (PoS), which puts a spotlight on ownership, and Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS), a system where only a few get to make the calls. And the emerging consensus mechanisms.
Full-text available
Purpose The authors target the interrelationships between non-fungible tokens (NFTs), decentralized finance (DeFi) and carbon allowances (CA) markets during 2021–2023. The recent shift of crypto and DeFi miners from China (the People's Republic of China, PRC) green hydro energy to dirty fuel energies elsewhere induces investments in carbon offsetting instruments; this is a backdrop to the authors’ investigation. Design/methodology/approach The quantile vector autoregression (VAR) approach is employed to examine extreme-quantile-connectedness and spillovers among the NFT Index (NFTI), DeFi Pulse Index (DPI), KraneShares Global Carbon Strategy ETF price (KRBN) and the Solactive Carbon Emission Allowances Rolling Futures Total Return Index (SOLCARBT). Findings At bull markets, DPI is the only consistent net shock transmitter as NFTI transmits innovations only at the most extreme quantile. At bear markets, KRBN and SOLCARBT are net shock transmitters, while NFTI is the only consistent net shock receiver. The receiver-transmitter roles change as a function of the market conditions. The increases in the relative tail dependence correspond to the stress events, which make systemic connectedness augment, turning market-specific idiosyncratic considerations less relevant. Originality/value The shift of digital asset miners from the PRC has resulted in excessive fuel energy consumption and aggravated environmental consequences regarding NFTs and DeFi mining. Although there exist numerous studies dedicated to CA trading and its role in carbon print reduction, the direct nexus between NFT, DeFi and CA has never been addressed in the literature. The originality of the authors’ research consists in bridging this void. Results are valuable for portfolio managers in bull and bear markets, as the authors show that connectedness is more intense under such conditions.
Full-text available
Global greenhouse gas emissions need to reach net-zero around mid-century to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. This decarbonization challenge has, inter alia, increased the political and societal pressure on companies to disclose their carbon footprints. As a response, numerous companies announced roadmaps to become carbon neutral or even negative. The first step on the journey towards carbon neutrality, however, is to quantify corporate emissions accurately. Current carbon accounting and reporting practices remain unsystematic and not comparable, particularly for emissions along the value chain (so-called scope 3). Here we present a framework to harmonize scope 3 emissions by accounting for reporting inconsistency, boundary incompleteness, and activity exclusion. In a case study of the tech sector, we find that corporate reports omit half of the total emissions. The framework we present may help companies, investors, and policy makers to identify and close the gaps in corporate carbon footprints.
Full-text available
Bitcoin’s increasing energy consumption has triggered a passionate debate about the sustainability of the digital currency. And yet, most studies have thus far ignored that Bitcoin miners cycle through a growing amount of short-lived hardware that could exacerbate the growth in global electronic waste. E-waste represents a growing threat to our environment, from toxic chemicals and heavy metals leaching into soils, to air and water pollutions caused by improper recycling. Here we present a methodology to estimate Bitcoin’s e-waste and find that it adds up to 30.7 metric kilotons per annum, per May 2021. This number is comparable to the amount of small IT and telecommunication equipment waste produced by a country like the Netherlands. At peak Bitcoin price levels seen early in 2021, the annual amount of e-waste may grow beyond 64.4 metric kilotons in the midterm, which highlights the dynamic trend if the Bitcoin price rises further. Moreover, the demand for mining hardware already today disrupts the global semiconductor supply chain. The strategies we present may help to mitigate Bitcoin’s growing e-waste problem.
Full-text available
The digital currency Bitcoin is known for its energy hunger and associated carbon footprint. Investors, how-ever, must not neglect further environmental, social, and governance issues related to digital currencies. Therefore, we urge the adoption of a more comprehensive view in assessing the externalities of investments in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
Ulrich Gallersdörfer is a research associate in the Department of Informatics at the Technical University of Munich. His research focuses on identity management in blockchains. His interest extends to further aspects of the technology, ranging from environmental implications to data analytics applications. Lena Klaaßen is a graduate student at TUM School of Management at the Technical University of Munich. She is specialized in energy markets and accounting. Her research focuses on carbon accounting in the corporate and cryptocurrency space. She has previously analyzed blockchain-related firms for a venture capital fund. Christian Stoll conducts research at the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and at the Center for Energy Markets of the Technical University of Munich. His research focuses on the implications of climate change from an economic point of view.
Participation in the Bitcoin blockchain validation process requires specialized hardware and vast amounts of electricity, which translates into a significant carbon footprint. Here, we demonstrate a methodology for estimating the power consumption associated with Bitcoin’s blockchain based on IPO filings of major hardware manufacturers, insights on mining facility operations, and mining pool compositions. We then translate our power consumption estimate into carbon emissions, using the localization of IP addresses. We determine the annual electricity consumption of Bitcoin, as of November 2018, to be 45.8 TWh and estimate that annual carbon emissions range from 22.0 to 22.9 MtCO2. This means that the emissions produced by Bitcoin sit between the levels produced by the nations of Jordan and Sri Lanka, which is comparable to the level of Kansas City. With this article, we aim to gauge the external costs of Bitcoin and inform the broader debate on the costs and benefits of cryptocurrencies.
China's crypto miners make hard choices to meet climate goals
  • K Le
Le, K. (2021). China's crypto miners make hard choices to meet climate goals.
Latest data shows the US now leads with 35% of Bitcoin's hash rate
  • W Zhao
Zhao, W. (2022). Latest data shows the US now leads with 35% of Bitcoin's hash rate. 120372/us-lead-bitcoin-hash-ratecambridge.
New York and Texas are winning the war to attract bitcoin miners
CNBC (2021). New York and Texas are winning the war to attract bitcoin miners.
Kazakhstan's deadly protests hit bitcoin, as the world's second-biggest mining hub shuts down
CNBC (2022). Kazakhstan's deadly protests hit bitcoin, as the world's second-biggest mining hub shuts down.