• The Cambridge Centre For Alternative Finance (CCAF) study on Bitcoin’s environmental impact underestimates the amount of sustainable energy used for mining.
• ESG investors are largely uncomfortable investing in Bitcoin due to the CCAF report’s findings that sustainable energy only makes up 37.6% of total energy use.
• In order for ESG funds to invest in Bitcoin, they need independent, empirical data demonstrating unambiguously how the CCAF study came to be understated and by how much, that Bitcoin is quantitatively moving towards sustainability, and that it is a net positive to the environment.
Bitcoin’s Energy Usage: What We Know
The Cambridge Centre For Alternative Finance (CCAF) recently released a study on Bitcoin’s environmental impact titled “A Deep Dive Into Bitcoin’s Environmental Impact.” This study found that only 37.6% of Bitcoin mining’s total energy use is from sustainable sources. However, this underestimates the actual amount of sustainable energy used for mining as there have been significant advances in this area since then.
Why ESG Investment Matters
Environmental Social Governance (ESG) investment is becoming increasingly popular and is projected to reach $10.5 trillion in the U.S alone. This means that if ESG funds feel comfortable investing in Bitcoin then user adoption can occur and this could be a major boon for its growth. Right now however, many ESG investors are unsure about investing due to the findings of the CCAF report which showed only 37.6% of total energy being from sustainable sources.
What Would It Take For ESG Funds To Support Bitcoin?
In order for ESG funds to invest in Bitcoin projects they require three things; independent empirical data demonstrating how the CCAF report was understated and by how much, evidence that shows a macro trend towards sustainability, and proof that it would be net positive for the environment overall if they did invest in it.
What Is Being Done To Address This Issue?
Bitcoin Mining Council (BMC) has produced its own study which claims 58.9% of total energy usage comes from renewable sources but unfortunately it has been met with skepticism due to BMC being an industry body rather than an independent source of research like Cambridge Centre For Alternative Finance (CCAF). Environmental groups such as Earth Justice have assumed that CCAF numbers must be correct while ignoring BMC’s research leading to stalled user adoption due to a lack of progress around this issue within the industry itself thus far.
Conclusion
To ensure widespread adoption of bitcoin and maintain its growth trajectory it will be vital for independent research into bitcoin’s environmental impact which takes into account all available data including industry bodies such as BMC as well as other relevant sources like CCAF so we can get an accurate picture on where we stand with regard to bitcoin’s sustainability efforts . Until then, further progress towards wider acceptance from mainstream institutions such as banks or government bodies may remain slow going until these issues are addressed properly .