It’s not a hyperbole to say that the media industry is all in for Bitcoin. It doesn’t matter if it is for the huge engagement that can be obtained from the buzzing keyword digital asset or an honest opinion about bitcoin mining, it seems like media outlets can’t help but exaggerate comments on bitcoin.
This was evident in the recent article that Greenidge Generation published about its operations at Seneca Lake, New York.
Bitcoin Magazine‘s level 39 contributed an outstanding piece which addressed the issues in this NBC article.
Basically, the NBC piece used a quote from a concerned citizen. This was not hyperbole.
Abi Buddington, who lives near the plant, said that the lake was so warm it makes you feel like you’re in an outdoor hot tub.
It is interesting that Bitcoin is not mentioned in the famous quote.
Citizens have every right to be concerned about any topic they choose, and there are channels that allow them to voice and act on their concerns. Level 39’s article explains that the actual warming of a lake due to the plant is not real and there are many complex factors that NBC ignores.
Why would a media company publish such a hyperbolic comment to try to portray a bitcoin mining facility in a negative light when it could be interpreted as a statement of fact?
They don’t like Bitcoin because they don’t understand it
If you don’t believe bitcoin to be a worthwhile energy source, any carbon or environmental impact it generates is unacceptable.
However, to be able to decide if bitcoin is worth the energy, one must first understand bitcoin. Many media companies don’t have this understanding.
This piece by Crsus_BTC explains why people who are educated often misunderstand bitcoin and actively dislike it. Allen Farrington expands on this idea. He states, “But the gist is that people whose primary intellectual pursuits are ‘wordsmithery’ (competitively presenting essentially verbal arguments with the hope of exerting influence) tend to be inclined to find unfair or unjust a dynamic where this gets you nowhere.
The media was immediately brought up when I read this. In order to exert influence, the media uses words and phrases in a verbal argument format. This time it is about your opinion on bitcoin and its environmental impacts.
After accepting the fact that bitcoin is not worth the effort, the media are left with hyperbole and quotes from people who don’t understand bitcoin.
One example of an environmental activist that doesn’t understand bitcoin and is frequently cited in media is Yvonne Taylor . She stated, We simply cannot allow this ludicrous plan of burning fossil fuels in order to make fake money in light of climate change.
This disrespectful description of a global network of monetary networks meant to empower unbanked individuals should have been highlighted as such. Instead, it was covered in national media about bitcoin.
The Greenidge Seneca piece mentions the same activist. She states that “These crypto operations” are seeking out places with relatively low power and cool climates. It is a terrible business model for New York, the United States, and the planet.
Taylor stated again in a separate that he was talking about using more fossil fuels to make money during climate change. This Taylor viewed as insane.
Their view of Bitcoin might be insane, but infringing on the freedom to run computer code to solve mathematical problems that rewards you with bitcoin is even more insane.
Bitcoin uses energy for mining, but its ability to store, transfer and protect the wealth of entire civilizations makes this energy use justifiable. In Hass McCook’s A Comparative Analysis of Bitcoin’s Environment With That of Gold and Banking, the truth about bitcoin’s environmental impacts is revealed to be much lower than those of other industries. It is understandable that we want to reduce our environmental impact. Adopting a monetary standard that encourages long-term planning, coordination, and savings is the best way to do this.
It has been shown that bitcoin has a negligible environmental impact in comparison to global greenhouse gases emissions. No matter how many times bitcoin is called ‘fake currency’, the core of their view that bitcoin impacts climate change has been proven to be negligible in comparison to global greenhouse gas emissions.
The media’s portrayal of Bitcoin can be described as a misinterpretation, just like telling a police officer that you don’t know it’s against the law to drive drunk is a misinterpretation.
Because of their inability to understand, the media intentionally misleads people about the environmental impact of bitcoin. Bitcoin Magazine does not report on ideas or topics that we do not fully understand. These media outlets can’t say the same.