muju on Nostr: The New York Times hypocritically attacks Bitcoin mining operations for their energy ...
The New York Times hypocritically attacks Bitcoin mining operations for their energy consumption and carbon footprint, while conveniently ignoring the enormous environmental impact of their own paper mills, printing plants and industrial operations.
While the NYT laments Bitcoin miners using electricity, they fail to recognize that electricity production itself is already regulated. Bitcoin mining does not directly emit any pollution or greenhouse gases - it simply consumes electricity generated from a mix of energy sources that are regulated and moving towards renewable energy. If powering electric cars is considered environmentally friendly, then the electricity usage of Bitcoin miners should not be vilified either.
Unlike the renewable energy arguments the NYT makes against Bitcoin, their own massive paper and printing plants rely on clearly polluting and unsustainable practices, from logging old-growth forests to dumping toxic waste into rivers. The pollution and health hazards caused by the NYT's own industrial facilities have led to numerous lawsuits, fines, and criticism from communities and environmental groups over the decades.
The New York Times attacks Bitcoin not out of environmental principle but due to political and financial interests. A decentralized digital currency threatens their privilege and control. They dismiss how Bitcoin empower people all over the world with access to finance and stronger economic freedom, especially in developing countries. To NYT, the environment only matters when it can be used to argue against technologies that could challenge established systems of power and wealth.
While advocating for environmental progress, the New York Times fails to practice what they preach. Their own disproportionate consumption and pollution undermines any moral authority on the issue. Only by remedying their own unsustainable practices can they rightfully criticize the environmental impacts of others. Until then, their attacks on Bitcoin mining remain unjustified, self-serving and rooted in politics rather than facts.
Study #Bitcoin
While the NYT laments Bitcoin miners using electricity, they fail to recognize that electricity production itself is already regulated. Bitcoin mining does not directly emit any pollution or greenhouse gases - it simply consumes electricity generated from a mix of energy sources that are regulated and moving towards renewable energy. If powering electric cars is considered environmentally friendly, then the electricity usage of Bitcoin miners should not be vilified either.
Unlike the renewable energy arguments the NYT makes against Bitcoin, their own massive paper and printing plants rely on clearly polluting and unsustainable practices, from logging old-growth forests to dumping toxic waste into rivers. The pollution and health hazards caused by the NYT's own industrial facilities have led to numerous lawsuits, fines, and criticism from communities and environmental groups over the decades.
The New York Times attacks Bitcoin not out of environmental principle but due to political and financial interests. A decentralized digital currency threatens their privilege and control. They dismiss how Bitcoin empower people all over the world with access to finance and stronger economic freedom, especially in developing countries. To NYT, the environment only matters when it can be used to argue against technologies that could challenge established systems of power and wealth.
While advocating for environmental progress, the New York Times fails to practice what they preach. Their own disproportionate consumption and pollution undermines any moral authority on the issue. Only by remedying their own unsustainable practices can they rightfully criticize the environmental impacts of others. Until then, their attacks on Bitcoin mining remain unjustified, self-serving and rooted in politics rather than facts.
Study #Bitcoin