[kbos87]

These are two great examples of just how thin and self-serving the counter-arguments to crypto being an energy hog are. I'll save you some time...

The premise of the first article is that the carbon footprint of fiat currency needs to include the impact of an endless cycle of debt, inflation, recessions, and wars that fiat currency enables. Regardless of whether or not that cycle is true and driven by fiat currency is one thing... assuming that cycle would end if we could flip over to crypto is solidly ridiculous.

The second article talks about the fact that 75% of miners use renewable energy. Dig a level deeper into the source they cite and you see that it's 75% of miners who use renewable energy as a part of their "energy mix" (LOL) - and that it's more like 39% of the energy used in mining is renewable. They go on to talk about Great American Mining's efforts to mine using captured methane emissions from oil & gas production. It's an intriguing concept but it's literally in its infancy, and the source they are focused on looks like it accounts for less than 1/3 of methane emissions - https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#m...

The fact that the reasoning is so very thin in both of these examples tells me everything I need to know. People just want a headline to point to.

[svachalek]

You are right but you need to substitute "proof of work" for "crypto" when you talk about energy hogs. Proof of Stake is also crypto and does not need to guzzle power.