There’s been a lot of talk of cryptocurrency lately. Whether it’s been from the media, some celebrity, some businessman, or the government themselves, a lot of people have been weighing in on the subject.

Mostly negative.

Celebrities love to promote a product when they could make considerable money off of it, but they don’t actually know what the products are. Or they actively hate them, and want to sabotage them. Same with the news. Their advertisers are directly affronted by the concept of free currency, so they constantly find any excuse to demean both the cryptocurrency itself, and its users. Hard to keep people married to a financial and consumerist system that pays their bills when people discover decentralized money they can use to get what they want regardless of restrictions.

And governments have every reason to hate them, especially given the fact that governments rely on the supremacy of their own currencies in order to stay afloat. Celebrities are just along for the ride, and they’ll do anything to stay relevant. So all these people will talk about cryptocurrencies, but they won’t actually look into them to understand them. Same with the businessman who get into it as some sort of investment potential, and then start talking a bunch of shit as soon as the crypto markets don’t do what they want. Or, in some cases, to get the crypto markets to do exactly what they want, allowing them to pump and dump, raking in massive profits. And the lapdog MSM will gleefully reinforce the status quo to reinforce their consumer base, so of course they’ll just parrot what’s said in whatever press release the establishment puts out.

Free story? No work? Sign ‘em up.

But what you’ll find is that most of the reasons given for disliking cryptocurrency would also apply to more mainstream currencies, and the people involved don’t actually know what they’re talking about. Or they obviously know and don’t mind sabotaging something good, because that good thing is threatening their bottom line. Anyway you cut it though, there’s a ton of misinformation about the effect on the environment, and with the massive uptick in environmentalist propaganda out there, it’s valuable to discuss some of the places these people get wrong.

To get started, let’s talk about the fact that cryptocurrency isn’t in some bubble that’s impervious to sustainable energy. The fact is, investors want their investments to pay off, and buying expensive hardware is already a real toll on somebody’s pocketbook. The fact is, paying yet more for energy costs doesn’t make a whole lot of sense and investors aren’t stupid. They know this. That’s why a significant amount of miners are on renewable energy. This means that the Bitcoin infrastructure is more energy efficient than its financial counterparts by default. Just because of the actual incentives there, people are incentivized to find free energy sources so that they can make 100% profit eventually, and have basically no overhead. This idea would seem obvious to people if they spend more than half a second reading an Elon Musk tweet about how somehow cryptocurrency is bad, but you should still invest in Doge. I wonder why he would keep saying things that alter the cryptocurrency market, but don’t alter the amount of profit he’s making from it. Really boggles the noggle.

So how deep do these lies go? That’s the operant question when trying to assess the damage of these lies told by the news. Well, from the people who have actually studied it, and actually have access to the information? The amount of total sustainable power mix could be as high as 56%, making it 20% higher on average than the general energy consumption of the US itself. And 35% more sustainable than China’s, who just banned cryptocurrencies outright. El Salvador just transitioned their entire national currency system to cryptocurrency. Specifically bitcoin.

Now, I’m not a fan of that. I think the idea of not having a non blockchain-based form of value to exchange these things means that they lose the privacy element, and it just becomes a public blockchain where anyone can trace anyone’s transactions. Although that can be obscured with services like Wasabi and Bisq, so that’s a light concern. But generally, it goes to highlight the fact that entire countries can run on this stuff. And how do they all set their energy costs? Well, the mining will be done based on power from local volcanoes. That renewable energy will be consistently available, and something that they can use in order to power a huge amount of mining rigs entirely sustainably. This will make the global sustainable energy mix of Bitcoin operations even lower than it already is, and it’s absolutely negligible compared to the energy consumption of literally every major country.

In the US, the Scrubgrass plant in Pennsylvania burns a bunch of shit that would otherwise be left to pollute the local environment, and only makes a profit because they mine bitcoin. The Green ridge generation plant in New York’s Lake Seneca runs on natural gas and gets more profit by mining Bitcoin. Crusoe Energy Systems uses excess natural gas that would otherwise need to be burned anyway to power generators that power Bitcoin mining rigs. This is a better use for something that would have already gone into the atmosphere. Riot Blockchain in Texas simply is the power plant for the local area, and HODL Ranch runs on wind and solar. And there are also an absolute ton of other cryptocurrencies which are simply better for the environment than Bitcoin even is, but we don’t talk about that. We’re supposed to stick to bitcoin. Even though that’s not that bad either.  [Source: Forbes]

So then comes the question, what is cryptocurrency trying to replace? Well, if you ask a lot of the users of bitcoin, they would suggest that it’s trying to replace a currency which remains a poor long-term value store, in that it’s subject to the inflationary and foreign policy whims of the state. If you ask other people, they might tell you that it’s designed to replace currencies which are less private, and which have become way too easy to track, since they lash people to the tyrannical government which issues them, whether that be by debt, price increases, or a variety of other things. Not the least of which is the foreign policy of the country that issues them. But most of them would agree that at the very least, they’re happy the currency is replacing banks. Anyone around the world can now have a store of currency and it’s as easy as downloading an app onto their phone, a wallet onto one of their cheap computers, or something similar. Cold storage is also very popular in countries with large amounts of tyranny.

Yet a lot of people have been trained to believe that this replacement is terrible for the environment…that it was somehow better before. This is because the media, celebrities, governments, and more, have all been trying to convince people that cryptocurrencies are some new and emerging evil against the otherwise perfect and immaculate environment, and the fact that people are using them is some sort of indication of the downfall of the world. Hell, I had to make an entire video because one such type of crypto was so heavily scrutinized that even now bringing it up, you will be accused of burning huge chunks of rain forest or some other equally absurd amount of fear mongering about them. Those are NFTs. But cryptocurrencies don’t just exist in a vacuum. It’s not as though the existence of cryptocurrencies somehow tainted a perfect world. And what they’re trying to replace is the banking industry. What that means is that the banking industry has to be better for the environment than cryptocurrencies are. And with all the frenzies in the press and everywhere else, you would assume that that would be the case. It’s not like all these people could be wrong, right?

Well yes, actually. They could be wrong. And they are. That’s exactly what they are, when they ignore the absolutely massive costs of modern banking, both economic and in terms of carbon. And given the fact that the only way people measure environmental impact anymore is carbon, let’s go with that. Even though it’s not very scientific, and it doesn’t make very much sense to focus exclusively on this, that’s where people mock cryptocurrency. So let’s hit him at their home.

According to a NASDAQ article, the impact of banking and gold mining alone dwarf cryptocurrency. It goes over the fact that gold is not only released to mine gold, but it is also released to process it into what people use and to make it storage ready. NASDAQ says, “the gold mining industry’s 2020 total to 265 TWh of energy used and 145 Mt of CO2 produced if we use the DePaul study’s numbers and account for 1750 tons of jewelry.”

As to banking, NASDAQ went on to say, “In 2014, I calculated a figure of 660 TWh of energy used by the banking system’s branches and ATMs, in addition to cotton, plastic, and metal for manufacture of notes and coins. Without too much wizardry, we can conservatively assume an increase of 1%–2% per year, and we can therefore round up our figure to 700 TWh of energy consumed, and about 400 Mt of CO2 produced.”

And it finished, “Using the current global average grid figure of about 0.6 tons of CO2 per kWh of electricity produced, Bitcoin mining emits 70 Mt of CO2 annually. Although the comparisons are not like-for-like, and with only Bitcoin’s scope of energy use and emissions being 100% defined, we can say that Bitcoin consumes/emits less than half of what the gold mining industry does, and less than one-fifth of what bank branches and ATMs do.”

And that’s just the start. While Hass McCook’s analysis is amazingly concise, it didn’t even account for the vehicles that have to carry this cash around, or the machines that have to be built in order to automatically count and dispense cash in a secure way, or the huge spike that has occurred in money production to meet the demands of the trillions of dollars of stimulus that the US government is putting out there. Or the process of transporting it overseas, since it can’t just be sent like a cryptocurrency can. Even more than that, everybody who works in these industries has to do silly things like eat, pay bills, and the like. That led Peter St. Onge at Coindesk to write:

“You can appreciate fiat’s secondary footprint from any street corner on Earth: 80,000 bank branches and 470,000 ATMs in the U.S. alone, along with forests of skyscrapers that dominate every city on the planet. Then the part we don’t see: Finance and insurance are 8.4% of the gross domestic product in the U.S., only slightly behind manufacturing. That means millions taking the subway or driving to the office – or, the pandemic equivalent, firing up an army of laptops and call centers – to sling paper money under fiat’s harsh fluorescent glow.”

He went on to prove that 16,500 TWh was destroyed during the ‘08 recession, and that, “It would take between 500 and 1,000 years for Bitcoin’s energy use to even approach the 2008 crisis alone.”

But this is all surface level, really. Because when you look deeper into the way the dollar works, these banking industries aren’t just running their own system, they are hugely responsible for the status quo in terms of environmental impact. That’s why there have been a ton of articles that have been coming out discussing how banks invest their money. Because it’s hugely important to know what banks are doing with what they get. The fractional reserve system gives them significant lending power, but those loans go to recipients that any green activist should be opposed to. Dubbed “financial emissions”, banks set out to document the carbon impact of their lending process, and what they found out is that the financial industry was basically responsible for 3% of emissions around the world in 2020. And given the fact that not all banks participated, and not everything was likely reported, it’s probably worse than that. This led multiple outlets to start reporting a fact that a lot of these people would probably rather they not…namely, that banks are responsible for 700 times more emissions from their loans than their offices.

If I know you’re about to buy a gun to kill somebody, and I hand you the money so that you can buy that gun, I’m partially responsible for that person’s death. Knowing what somebody is going to do with something and then financing that, might as well be pulling that trigger myself.

So, then, banks enable the industries that are responsible for pollution. Not just that, but they also fund the military industrial complex. Both of these combined with the fact that the US government has put the entire world on the Petro dollar and you end up with a dollar that is not only strictly tied to pollution-causing oil, but a financial institution which is responsible for even more pollution. Indeed, the US federal government is the worst polluter in the world, and so the money that allows them to keep their empire is nothing short of their lifeblood to keep on polluting as they always have.

Why then are we supposed to stop using something that’s already better for the environment, especially as an alternative to this system which is grotesquely bad for it? Well, that’s what they don’t want you to think about. They don’t want you to think much at all. They would rather you stop that thinking thing you’re doing right now by reading this article. And especially listening to me. I’m evil. Stop reading. Seriously. Oh, you’re still interested? Well then strap in, because it gets worse.

Perhaps the most damning evidence that this entire media conspiracy to demonize cryptocurrency is a bunch of bullshit is the fact that the US government is eyeing making their own cryptocurrency in the form of a centralized banking digital currency, on a completely private blockchain, auditable only by them, to remove the privacy from all transactions in the US and anywhere that uses this dollar. The new “Fedcoin” is going to be responsible for the erasure of purchase freedom in the US and it’s going to coincide with a facial recognition and a blockchain-based ID system, allowing total surveillance of all the territories that accept it. But they’re not talking about how bad that will be for the environment, despite the fact that it runs on the same technology. Despite the fact that in order for this to work, there will have to be MORE computers dedicated to mining this stuff too. Transactions will still need to be processed, even if they’re centralized. And the people behind this, know that. Accenture blockchain technology is already very well familiar with the environmental costs of cryptos, and so is the US government which is pushing anti-cryptocurrency legislation, for the non-government ones. It’s okay when they do it. Because they get to take more of your privacy. They get to take more of your liberty. They get to monitor you everywhere you go. That’s the real price of trusting these people. It’s that in the end, all you get is tyranny. No exceptions.

But world leaders like China (who polluted the skies badly enough that Hong Kong had to install fake skylines for people’s social media posts) and the US get to play environmental cop, and play like they’re concerned about your well-being, all while they destroy the last glimmers of your freedom by using the very same technology they claim is bad for the environment. Because in the end, this isn’t about the environment, and it never was. It’s always been about control. The state is the single greatest polluting entity on the planet, and it and all of its affiliates are terrible for the environment.

But you won’t see them campaigning for an end to the state. That would be consistent, and we can’t have that. What you will see is them campaigning against whatever solutions people discover, which is why they put houses back on the grid after they’ve been off the grid using sustainable energy. Which is also why they will destroy perfectly good food during alleged food shortages, because that food was being given for free by Nancy actors to homeless people. It’s why they’ll encourage a sedentary lifestyle and try to force you to stay home, during a time when you should be trying to be more physically fit than ever. They don’t actually care about the environment. They don’t care about the people. All of that is just a means to an end. Their end. They want control, and they’re willing to hurt people to get it. And if you don’t cosign it, you should stop spreading their propaganda if you did that to begin with.

Their propaganda wants people to believe that anything that elites don’t like is bad for the environment, thus allowing them to control people they don’t like. Do you remember when the pandemic started, and people started to talk about how nice it was outside when the lockdowns were there? You remember all the articles about how nature was healing? These people want a very specific thing. They want power. That’s why if you look at their propaganda for a long time, it has been about reducing the carbon impact by surveillance and control. Because it’s not about carbon. It’s not about the environment. It’s about the control part. That’s why they get to constantly get away with what they do, because they appeal to people’s emotional state, so that they allow and enable the expansion of the state. If you want to win here, you have to avoid being emotionally manipulated. And it’s not an easy thing to do, especially in this environment of social media censorship and censure from the people. It’s more popular than ever to be a Karen. And they’re even redefining what a Karen is so that they can claim anyone not doing what they want them to is one.

If you want to avoid this emotional manipulation, it’s going to be a rocky road. But you have to remember something: these people are not acting in your interests, and pretending that they are allows them to work.

It’s sort of like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. They told people they’d give people free health care in exchange for participation in a medical study. Instead, they gave them barely any medical care at all, while they mass injected them with syphilis. Funny how trusting the government doesn’t always result in the welfare of the people. Almost like that’s the point. Almost like blindly supporting their agenda because of some vague allusions to environmental protection isn’t going to end well for the people. But oh no, I’m sounding too much like a conspiracy theorist, and that means they have to silence people like me, and why our page has already been banned from Facebook once. Because you can’t have people thinking outside that narrative.

So, I’ll leave you with this. If you really want to help the environment, the first step isn’t to eliminate bitcoin, or any other cryptocurrency. The first step is to eliminate the dollar from your life as much as possible. Agorism is one of the primary Green endeavors of our time, and if you use your agorism to the best of your capabilities, you will be much more environmentally sound than Biden voters even could be. The state has you hooked to the idea that they’re the only ones who can ever solve problems, all while being the primary cause of the problems they claim to solve. It’s problem, reaction, solution, and ordo ab chao incarnate. They’re evil. And they want to make themselves seem good enough that you’ll allow the evil when it comes along. Or at least, make people they don’t like seeing bad enough that there’s no way you’ll even consider their side. It’s cult mentality. And they want your soul.

It’s up to you to tell them something they haven’t been told enough.

“No.”