{"id":774,"date":"2021-01-07T12:04:35","date_gmt":"2021-01-07T12:04:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/?p=774"},"modified":"2021-01-07T12:08:25","modified_gmt":"2021-01-07T12:08:25","slug":"conservation-tool-or-environmental-threat-blockchain-technology-is-a-double-edged-sword","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/index.php\/2021\/01\/07\/conservation-tool-or-environmental-threat-blockchain-technology-is-a-double-edged-sword\/","title":{"rendered":"Conservation tool or environmental threat? Blockchain technology is a double-edged sword."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Bitcoin has been\nhailed as \u2018the future of money.\u2019 As I write this, a single bitcoin is worth\nover $34,000 USD. In 2009, when Bitcoin was released, a single bitcoin was\nworth $0.0008. That is less than one tenth of a cent. In between, billionaires\nhave been made. Bitcoin\u2019s incredible rise in value and popularity occurred\nprimarily due to the novel technology it is based on, called blockchain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blockchain is an\nextremely secure record-keeping system, invented as a public transaction ledger\nfor Bitcoin. Transaction records are created in batches called blocks, which are\nvalidated, chained together cryptographically, and stored on a distributed\nnetwork of computers. The appeal of the technology lies in the fact that\ntransaction records are stored permanently and openly and are virtually\nimpossible to tamper with. Every record has an exact time and sequence and\ncannot be altered, deleted or undone. This has led to a tremendous number of\npotential uses, ranging from financial services to healthcare to supply chains\nto conservation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blockchain\ntechnology is tamper-proof largely because of the transaction verification\nsystem, called a \u201cconsensus method\u201d (so named because the entire network must\nagree on the validity of each transaction). The consensus method used by\nBitcoin is called proof of work. The idea behind proof of work is that every\ntime a block is added to the blockchain, a complex mathematical problem must be\nsolved as \u201cproof\u201d that the block is valid. In the case of Bitcoin, these\nmathematical problems are solved by a network of \u201cminers\u201d using powerful\ncomputers dedicated to the task. They all compete across the network and are\nrewarded with small amounts of Bitcoin each time their computers successfully\nsolve a problem. The reward ensures there will be plenty of miners, and the\nminers in turn prevent fraud, because adding a fraudulent transaction to the\nblockchain would require more computing power than the entire network of competing\nminers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The downside of proof\nof work is that it requires tremendous quantities of energy. The Cambridge\nBitcoin Electricity Consumption Index (CBECI) shows that Bitcoin\u2019s mining\nnetwork currently consumes an estimated 105 TWh of electricity per year, which\nis 0.48% of the entire world electricity consumption. For reference, this puts it\nsomewhere between the nations of Kazakhstan (population 18.7 million) and the\nNetherlands (population 17.5 million). This number is expected to increase as\nBitcoin\u2019s popularity and price continue to rise, such that Bitcoin is seen as a\nthreat to the planet (Truby, 2018). In fact, it\u2019s been suggested that the\nelectricity demand from Bitcoin mining could create enough CO2<\/sup> emissions\nto warm the planet by 2 degrees Celsius within a few decades (Mora et al.,\n2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, there are\ntwo caveats to consider. First, research by CoinShares estimated that at least\n74% of Bitcoin mining activity is powered by renewable electricity, as miners\nare largely distributed in areas where hydroelectric power is abundant (Bendiksen\nand Gibbons, 2019). Second, proof of work is not the only blockchain consensus\nmethod being used. For example, Ethereum, another popular cryptocurrency, is switching\nfrom proof of work to a consensus method called proof of stake. In proof of\nstake, a \u201ccommittee\u201d of validators is randomly selected from a pool, all of\nwhom must put up a certain number of their own tokens (e.g. coins) as\ncollateral in order to create and validate new blocks on the blockchain. The\nproof in this case is the \u201cstake\u201d, the tokens themselves, which the validator\nwill lose if they attempt to verify fraudulent transactions. Overcoming this\nwould require massive amounts of tokens. As an incentive, the validators are\nrewarded with some amount of the transaction fees that are required for transactions\non the network. And because there are no mathematical problems to solve, the\nenergy usage required for proof of stake is minimal. Proof of stake and other\nalternative consensus methods have not been as well tested as proof of work,\nand skepticism remains as to whether any of them will ultimately be\nsuccessfully. However, the fact that such alternatives are being actively\nresearched and implemented (especially in Ethereum, which is the second-largest\ncryptocurrency behind Bitcoin) offers hope that the environmental threat posed\nby blockchain technology will diminish or even disappear over time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same\nverification protocols that render blockchain technology a potential threat make\nit an innovative and useful conservation tool. For example, products can be\ntraced from source to destination to verify sustainability or compliance with\nenvironmental standards. A company called Provenance created a blockchain system\nfor verified tracking of yellowfin and skipjack tuna fish caught by fishermen\nin Indonesia (the largest tuna-producing country) all the way to the point of\nsale (Le\nS\u00e8ve et al., 2018; Provenance, 2018). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another use of\nblockchain for conservation is in providing incentives to landowners to reward\nthem for conserving forested land instead of allowing it to be cleared. Large\ncompanies may place a lot of pressure on landowners in ecologically rich\nlow-income countries to convert their environmental resources into money by\nclearing forests for palm oil plantations or cattle grazing. This can be\ncounteracted through blockchain technology by offering value in the form of climate\nor water credits that can be converted to other currencies. For example, GainForest\nuses crowdfunding to reward farmers in the Amazon for preserving rainforest.\nFarmers are paid through blockchain and rainforest preservation is verified by\nremote sensing satellites (Greene, 2018; Le S\u00e8ve et al., 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Power Ledger uses\nblockchain technology for peer-to-peer trading of renewable energy on a\ndecentralized energy system (Le S\u00e8ve et al., 2018; UNDP, 2018). This provides incentives for installing\nrenewable energy sources, as any excess energy produced can be sold for profit.\nEnergy sources can also be traced and verified through the blockchain to ensure\nrenewability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plastic Bank recycles\nplastic waste, using plastic as a form of currency to help people in developing\nnations who are living in poverty (Katz, 2019). Plastic bottle collectors can\nexchange collected plastic waste for money, items, or services such as school\ntuition, medical insurance, and internet access, through a blockchain-based\napp. The plastic waste is then sold back to manufacturers to be reintroduced\ninto the supply chain. Plastic Bank currently operates in Haiti, the\nPhilippines and Indonesia, and has collected more than 14 million kilograms of\nplastic waste from the ocean.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blockchain\ntechnology is still in its infancy, and these pioneering examples only scratch\nthe surface of what is possible. However, there are significant problems that\nneed to be solved, and many of the solutions must come from governmental policies.\nAccess to blockchain requires access to the internet, but a 2018 report by the\nWorld Bank found that only 14% of people in countries classed as low-income had\naccess to fast, reliable internet (World Bank, 2018). This compares to 82% of\npeople in high-income countries. Therefore, an internet-dependent solution to\nreducing economic inequality must begin with an increase in the distribution of\nreliable internet access to poor and rural communities. Richer countries must\nincentivize and aid poorer countries to invest in improvements to their digital\ninfrastructure. This is certain to be a complex and challenging task.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Energy use should\nalso be reduced in order to ensure net positive effects on the environment. The\nenergy-intensive proof of work consensus method should be avoided and replaced\nwith low energy consensus methods such as proof of stake. Governments can promote\nthis change through regulations, taxes or carbon-based registration fees\n(Truby, 2018). But this task must be approached with care, because forcing\nchanges on existing blockchains could undermine trust in the system, and\naggressive regulations could discourage new startups and growth in the industry\n(Truby, 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If these problems are solved, blockchain technology could be a game changer. With its promise of decentralization, transparent, tamper-proof transaction records, and international tokens which have the same value in the poorest countries as they do in the richest, blockchain technology has the potential to help reduce global economic inequality and promote environmental sustainability (both directly and as a consequence of reduced economic inequality).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bendiksen, C., & Gibbons, S. (2019). The Bitcoin\nMining Network: Trends, Composition, Average Creation Cost, Electricity\nConsumption & Sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Katz, D. (2019). Plastic Bank: launching Social\nPlastic\u00ae revolution. Field Actions Science Reports. The journal of\nfield actions<\/em>, (Special Issue 19), 96-99.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Le S\u00e8ve<\/a>,\nM. D., Mason, N., & Nassiry, D. (2018). Delivering blockchain\u2019s potential\nfor environmental sustainability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Provenance (2018) \u2018From shore to plate: tracking tuna\non the blockchain. Provenance\u2019. Report. London: Provenance<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Truby, J. (2018).\nDecarbonizing Bitcoin: Law and policy choices for reducing the energy\nconsumption of Blockchain technologies and digital currencies. Energy\nresearch & social science<\/em>, 44<\/em>, 399-410.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

UNDP (2018) The\nfuture is decentralised: blockchains, distributed ledgers and the future of\nsustainable development<\/em>. New York: UNDP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

World Bank (2018) \u2018Individuals\nusing the internet.\u2019 World Bank Data.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bitcoin has been hailed as \u2018the future of money.\u2019 As I write this, a single bitcoin is worth over $34,000 USD. In 2009, when Bitcoin was released, a single bitcoin was worth $0.0008. That is less than one tenth of a cent. In between, billionaires have been made. Bitcoin\u2019s incredible rise in value and popularity […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":780,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[12,13,14],"class_list":["post-774","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blog","tag-blockchain","tag-conservation","tag-environment"],"rttpg_featured_image_url":{"full":["https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/blockchain_nature-1.jpg",1920,1080,false],"landscape":["https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/blockchain_nature-1.jpg",1920,1080,false],"portraits":["https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/blockchain_nature-1.jpg",1920,1080,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/blockchain_nature-1-150x150.jpg",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/blockchain_nature-1-300x169.jpg",300,169,true],"large":["https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/blockchain_nature-1-1024x576.jpg",610,343,true],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/blockchain_nature-1-1536x864.jpg",1536,864,true],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/blockchain_nature-1.jpg",1920,1080,false],"post-thumbnail":["https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/blockchain_nature-1-680x330.jpg",680,330,true],"evolve-post-thumbnail":["https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/blockchain_nature-1-680x330.jpg",680,330,true],"evolve-slider-thumbnail":["https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/blockchain_nature-1-400x300.jpg",400,300,true],"evolve-tabs-img":["https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/blockchain_nature-1-50x50.jpg",50,50,true],"evolve-testimonial-avatar":["https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/blockchain_nature-1-80x80.jpg",80,80,true]},"rttpg_author":{"display_name":"Shawn Dove","author_link":"https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/index.php\/author\/shawn\/"},"rttpg_comment":0,"rttpg_category":"Blog<\/a>","rttpg_excerpt":"Bitcoin has been hailed as \u2018the future of money.\u2019 As I write this, a single bitcoin is worth over $34,000 USD. In 2009, when Bitcoin was released, a single bitcoin was worth $0.0008. That is less than one tenth of a cent. In between, billionaires have been made. Bitcoin\u2019s incredible rise in value and popularity…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/774","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=774"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/774\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":781,"href":"https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/774\/revisions\/781"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/780"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=774"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=774"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.science4wildlife.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=774"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}