I don’t think there’s such a thing as any truly clean energy. There is always a cost to the environment, whether it be the costs of the infrastructure, the fuel, or the environmental impact of what is actually consuming it. All that compute, which is basically in a constant state of being replaced and upgraded, as a consumer, has real environmental impact.
And for what in the end? To support a fringe economic system of monetary transfer and speculation? Less than 1% of people on earth have ever owned any amount of bitcoin, yet it consumes as much energy as it does? Just in the runtime of the network, not counting all the infrastructure, equipment, etc.
> I don’t think there’s such a thing as any truly clean energy.
Your use of "clean" here seems like a strawman.
Some forms of energy exploited by humans (i.e. fossil fuels) impose far greater environmental costs than others (i.e. wind/solar). Lumping them all together because nothing manufactured at scale is "clean" is ignoring the vast differences between them.
That's why anymore, the terms "renewable" and "zero-carbon" are used to describe future energy sources, not "clean".
> And for what in the end? To support a fringe economic system of monetary transfer and speculation?
Those are the ones said out loud.
The unspoken end is to weaken and destroy the liberal institutions that are currently backed by the power of fiat currency, to then replace them with illiberal ones.
Climate change and the environment are not typically concerns for people who want that.
I don't think we really need to question the meaning of "clean energy". I think we're all aware that it costs something to the environment, after all solar panels and batteries don't grow on trees.
And for what in the end? To support a fringe economic system of monetary transfer and speculation? Less than 1% of people on earth have ever owned any amount of bitcoin, yet it consumes as much energy as it does? Just in the runtime of the network, not counting all the infrastructure, equipment, etc.