Exploring sustainability in cryptocurrency protocols: environmental insights from PoW to PoS
Keywords:
Cryptocurrency, Sustainability, Proof-of-work, Proof-of-stake, Carbon footprintAbstract
Cryptocurrency mining, especially Bitcoin's Proof of Work (PoW), significantly impacts the environment through high energy consumption, carbon footprint, and e-waste. Ethereum's adoption of Proof of Stake (PoS) in 2022 offers a potential solution to reduce these effects. This study compares the environmental impacts of PoW and PoS, focusing on energy consumption, mining efficiency, hash rate, and carbon footprint. Using regression analysis and t-tests on data from Bitcoin (PoW) and Ethereum (before and after PoS) from 2017 to 2024, the results show that PoS significantly reduces energy consumption, carbon footprint, and e-waste, while improving mining efficiency. The findings highlight that transitioning to PoS can mitigate the environmental impact of cryptocurrency mining and encourage its broader adoption to align with global sustainability goals.
References
Ahn, J. et al.: Blockchain Consensus Mechanisms: A Bibliometric Analysis (2014–2024) Using VOSviewer and R Bibliometrix. Information. 15, 10, (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/info15100644.
2. Almeida, D. et al.: Information flow dynamics between cryptocurrency returns and electricity consumption: A comparative analysis of Bitcoin and Ethereum. Financ Res Lett. 68, 105997 (2024). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.105997.
3. Alzoubi, Y.I., Mishra, A.: Green blockchain – A move towards sustainability. J Clean Prod. 430, 139541 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139541.
4. Anandhabalaji, V. et al.: Energy consumption by cryptocurrency: A bibliometric analysis revealing research trends and insights. Energy Nexus. 13, 100274 (2024). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2024.100274.
5. Asteriou, D., Hall, S.G.: Applied econometrics. Bloomsbury Publishing (2021).
6. Baur, D.G., Karlsen, J.R.: Do crypto investors care about energy use and climate change? Evidence from Ethereum’s transition to proof-of-stake. J Environ Manage. 369, 122299 (2024). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122299.
7. Ghazouani, I. et al.: Powering perception, echoing green voices: The interplay of Cryptocurrency’s energy footprint and environmental discourse in steering the direction of the market. Borsa Istanbul Review. (2024). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2024.12.020.
8. Gujarati, D.N.: Gujarati: Basic Econometrics, Fourth Edition. (2004).
9. Jain, M. et al.: Review on E-waste management and its impact on the environment and society. Waste Management Bulletin. 1, 3, 34–44 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wmb.2023.06.004.
10. Kapengut, E., Mizrach, B.: An Event Study of the Ethereum Transition to Proof-of-Stake. Commodities. 2, 2, 96–110 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/commodities2020006.
11. Kohli, V. et al.: An analysis of energy consumption and carbon footprints of cryptocurrencies and possible solutions. Digital Communications and Networks. 9, 1, 79–89 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcan.2022.06.017.
12. Kumari, P. et al.: The changing dynamics of crypto mining and environmental impact. International Review of Economics & Finance. 89, 940–953 (2024). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2023.08.004.
13. Li, C. et al.: The optimal asset trading settlement based on Proof-of-Stake blockchains. Decis Support Syst. 166, 113909 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2022.113909.
14. Liu, K. et al.: A global perspective on e-waste recycling. Circular Economy. 2, 1, 100028 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cec.2023.100028.
15. Morrell, S.: Helping to reduce mining industry carbon emissions: A step-by-step guide to sizing and selection of energy efficient high pressure grinding rolls circuits. Miner Eng. 179, 107431 (2022). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2022.107431.
16. Mulligan, C. et al.: Blockchain for sustainability: A systematic literature review for policy impact. Telecomm Policy. 48, 2, 102676 (2024). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2023.102676.
17. Papp, A. et al.: Bitcoin and carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from daily production decisions. J Public Econ. 227, 105003 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2023.105003.
18. Qin, M. et al.: Are energy consumption and carbon emission caused by Bitcoin? A novel time-varying technique. Econ Anal Policy. 80, 109–120 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2023.08.004.
19. Rani, P. et al.: Toward a greener future: A survey on sustainable blockchain applications and impact. J Environ Manage. 354, 120273 (2024). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120273.
20. Sai, A.R., Vranken, H.: Promoting rigor in blockchain energy and environmental footprint research: A systematic literature review. Blockchain: Research and Applications. 5, 1, 100169 (2024). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcra.2023.100169.
21. Sapra, N. et al.: Impact of Proof of Work (PoW)-Based Blockchain Applications on the Environment: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda, (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16040218.
22. Sapra, N. et al.: Impact of Proof of Work (PoW)-Based Blockchain Applications on the Environment: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 16, 4, (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16040218.
23. Sarkodie, S.A. et al.: Assessment of Bitcoin carbon footprint. Sustainable Horizons. 7, 100060 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.horiz.2023.100060.
24. Siddik, M.A.B. et al.: The water and carbon footprint of cryptocurrencies and conventional currencies. J Clean Prod. 411, 137268 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137268.
25. De Vries, A.: Cryptocurrencies on the road to sustainability: Ethereum paving the way for Bitcoin. Patterns. 4, 1, 100633 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100633.
26. de Vries, A., Stoll, C.: Bitcoin’s growing e-waste problem. Resour Conserv Recycl. 175, 105901 (2021). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105901.
27. Wendl, M. et al.: The environmental impact of cryptocurrencies using proof of work and proof of stake consensus algorithms: A systematic review. J Environ Manage. 326, 116530 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116530.
28. Xiao, Z. et al.: The environmental cost of cryptocurrency: Assessing carbon emissions from bitcoin mining in China. Journal of Digital Economy. 2, 119–136 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdec.2023.11.001.
29. Yang, Z. et al.: Blockchain technology in building environmental sustainability: A systematic literature review and future perspectives. Build Environ. 245, 110970 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110970.
30. Zhang, D. et al.: Implications of cryptocurrency energy usage on climate change. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 187, 122219 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122219.
Downloads
Published
Conference Proceedings Volume
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.