It seems the latest media attack vector on #Bitcoin mining is water consumption. Once we move past the initial knee jerk reaction, calm down, ignore the media spin, and look at the data and source material a little closer, we actually find a more useful counter-narrative.
Having visited the original source cited in the BBC article on the matter (which I won't share here because I don't want to amplify), we see data from the University of Cambridge (link below). To be clear, it's just data - that's it. It even says right at the top of the source:
"All comparisons below are based on our best-guess estimate. The listed comparisons are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an endorsement nor any other form of value judgment."
I actually don't see any water consumption data in the source, but more on that later.
Interestingly, there is other data in the original source that can be interpreted in a positive light for Bitcoin mining. Here are two examples:
1) Bitcoin mining energy consumption accounts for 0.16% of global use (I recall nostr:npub1a2cww4kn9wqte4ry70vyfwqyqvpswksna27rtxd8vty6c74era8sdcw83a pointing out this was number is within the error bar for global energy consumption estimates).
2) Bitcoin energy consumption compared to industries, countries, activities:
- Bitcoin mining global energy consumption rank #26, while it ranks #66 in GHG emissions, showing it's cleaner than most industries, countries, etc.
Now as for the water consumption issue, let's assume for a moment that miners are not cooled using a closed-loop system (which would be insane if they weren't), and also let's assume the global Bitcoin mining water consumption cited in the BBC article is correct at up to 2,200 GLiters per year (there are caveats to this, namely this figure includes cooling water used in the electricity generation itself, which is kind of disingenuous). Nevertheless, this does indeed sound like a lot of water. But remember, it's important to always ask "it's a lot compared to what?"
The BBC article says each transaction uses a backyard swimming pool worth of water. Having done a back of the envelope calculation using ~10M BTC transactions per month (it's been pretty steady at the value the past ~5 years, at least from the data I saw on Wikipedia), and assuming a backyard pool is about 5000-10,000 gallons (assumes a pool is say 12 ft long x 12 ft wide × 5 ft average depth), their estimate total of ~2,000 GLiters per year roughly checks out (feel free to check my math and correct me if I'm wrong; don't trust, verify).
Having said all that, global annual water consumption is estimated at ~4 trillion m3, or 4,000,000 GLiters (source: ourworldindata). From these numbers, and assuming the earlier water use data is correct (which I question), Bitcoin mining accounts for 0.06% of global water consumption.
Alternately, let's look at water consumption of other human activity. Take lawns for instance (full transparency, I have a nice lawn so please don't accuse me of being anti-lawn or something) - lawns are fundamentally mostly aesthetic. If however, we categorize them as a "crop" (one that produces no food, but I digress), in the US, lawns use more water than all other crops combined. As well, if we look at other factors for lawns such as cumulative effect of minor fuel spills from people filling their gas mower, it works out to multiple Exxon Valdez spills *each year* (source: Jordan Harbinger Podcast episode 901). I've done the back of the envelope calculation myself - if you assume each household accidentally spills about 1/4 cup of fuel per year, and if you multiply that by all the households in the US, the amount you get is staggering.
For me, the lesson here is we have an opportunity to educate people with facts. It's easy to scream things like "the media is lying again", the path I prefer is that we need to be really diligent and intellectually honest about Bitcoin. If we're serious about winning, we need to be better than the corporate media at this. That means things like being honest that all industries, Bitcoin included, have externalities, they all have trade-offs. We have to educate people on the reality that it's a net good for the world. I remember a good quote once that went sometime like this "when we invented the airplane, we also invented plane crashes". I believe most reasonable people would agree that airplanes have been a net good for humanity.