Profoundly Disturbing FT Article on Bitcoin and the Environment

Asleep at the Switch

 

Katie Martin and Billy Nauman had an extremely scary article in the FT on Friday 21 May.

While the main point of the article was about the amount of energy used to mine Bitcoin and its impact on the environment, it was this quote that sent the real chill down my spine. 

Tesla chief executive Elon Musk has highlighted the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies. Amid calls from climate activists for tighter rules, governments and central banks are starting to take notice.

So what the FT seem to be saying is that absent the Technoking’s statement and that of “climate activists” –who by the way have been ignored for years--, governments and central banks would still not have “taken notice”.

Thus, our fate apparently depends on the random tweets of celebrity businessmen, including one who actually thinks cryptocurrencies are investable assets and whose statements have a volatility mirroring that of Bitcoin. 

Did I mention that he has an (indirect) economic interest in a portfolio of some US $1.5 billion (cost) in Bitcoin?

Just the sort of chap one would go to for wise counsel.

What a damning statement on several levels about the official entities whose remit is, as we are told, to look out for us!

Unclear as to whether we should ascribe this sorry state to attitude or aptitude.

Or perhaps more likely to both.

This is not the only example of such behavior.

We’ve seen another just this week.

After the ransomware attack on Colonial Pipeline, the US House of Representatives “sprang” into action. Given the prior somnolence, it must have been quite a “leap”. Olympic at least.

The House Homeland Security Committee—as aptly and ironically named as the House Select Committee on Intelligence—apparently just discovered that cyberattacks and hacking pose a national security threat. 

It has in the words of the Committee’s Chairman brought a “new urgency to our work”.

Given repeated past cyberattack incidents and a manifest failure to act, it may be appropriate to remove the word “new” from the Chairman’s statement.

Otherwise, the unwary reader might be tempted to think that there was some urgency in the past.

Having made this criticism, if you’re the faithful reader of this blog, you know that I try to be fair.

I should, therefore, acknowledge Congress’s achievement in reducing pollution through the prevention of the burning of the USA flag. Achieved without a constitutional amendment or even legislation!

And I think we can be almost certain they will “stand tall” to prevent plant-based substitutes for the hamburger and beer.

So, perhaps, all is not lost.

Just most.