1. Assume each mining pool's users are in the pool's home country, and use their country's average mix of fuel sources, and use the hardware in supplementary table 1 (which I haven't found), then Bitcoin emitted 69 MtCO2e in 2017.
2. Assume Bitcoin's usage increases at the same rate as a sample of other technologies (television, smart phone, washer+dryer...)
3. Assume that Bitcoin's carbon footprint increases with usage.
Then you can multiply the projected usage by the yearly carbon footprint, and estimate the effect on temperature, at 2°C.
A good counterargument is that Bitcoin's mining footprint is not proportional to usage. It's proportional to price * block reward = profitability.
However, this might balance out in the end. The block reward is decreasing exponentially every 4 years, but the price increases faster than usage. And when the block reward drops to zero, transaction fees will become the sole incentive for mining, which are proportional to usage.
Data & analysis is here: https://github.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/
The argument is:
1. Assume each mining pool's users are in the pool's home country, and use their country's average mix of fuel sources, and use the hardware in supplementary table 1 (which I haven't found), then Bitcoin emitted 69 MtCO2e in 2017.
2. Assume Bitcoin's usage increases at the same rate as a sample of other technologies (television, smart phone, washer+dryer...)
3. Assume that Bitcoin's carbon footprint increases with usage.
Then you can multiply the projected usage by the yearly carbon footprint, and estimate the effect on temperature, at 2°C.
A good counterargument is that Bitcoin's mining footprint is not proportional to usage. It's proportional to price * block reward = profitability.
However, this might balance out in the end. The block reward is decreasing exponentially every 4 years, but the price increases faster than usage. And when the block reward drops to zero, transaction fees will become the sole incentive for mining, which are proportional to usage.